II - Chula Vista Police Officers Association

Chula Vista Police Department Patrol Operations

Phase I Report

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

FINAL DRAFT

721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101

Palo Alto, California 94303 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509

May, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.

PHASE I

CVPD COMMUNITY PATROL DIVISION OVERVIEW

3. CVPD PATROL OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

4. CVPD PATROL-RELATED STAFFING AND OPERATIONAL REVISIONS

5. SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE SURVEY

59

88

9

19

Pa ge

1

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This final draft document is the Phase I Patrol Operations report performed by the Matrix Consulting Group (MCG) for the City of Chula Vista Police Department

(CVPD). Phase I covers the evaluation of Patrol Operations with the intent to meet the following Scope of Work:

1. Perform an analysis of the patrol function workload and staffing. Examine the geographic, temporal and functional deployment of patrol resources to ensure proper workload distribution. This should be conducted with recommendations of proper staffing to meet response time threshold standards of 6 minutes (received to arrive) for Priority One calls for service, and 12 minutes (received to arrive) for

Priority Two calls for service. Recommendations should be separate and distinct for each threshold standard.

2. Assess the effectiveness of the current beat/district configuration and the 4-10 staffing schedule in terms of cost, efficiency and effectiveness in relation to a 3-

12 staffing model, or other hybrid staffing models.

3. Assess the supervisor-to-employee ratio in Patrol.

4. Assess the utilization of non-sworn employees/volunteers in Patrol to handle non-emergency calls for service.

5.

Assess the department’s policies in regards to responses to alarms calls and alternative response options.

This first chapter provides an introduction and an executive summary of the

Phase I final draft report. This summary identifies the information and approaches used in this study and delineates key findings, conclusions and recommendations.

1. INTRODUCTION.

MCG was retained by the City of Chula Vista to conduct a two-phased report, the first focusing on patrol workload and staffing. This report provides MCG’s evaluation

Matrix Consulting Group Page 1


FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations and analysis. MCG’s analysis focused on a wide range of issues including staffing,

•

•

•

• workload allocation, and other important issues.

Specifically, the scope of work for this project included:

Executive summary of all key findings and recommendations.

Detailed analysis of current patrol-related staffing needs.

A clear description of all of the analytical techniques utilized by MCG in this assignment.

Recommendations relative to operational and staffing improvement opportunities.

To develop this analysis MCG conducted an extensive number of internal and stakeholder interviews, performed ride-alongs, distributed an employee survey and collected detailed data in an effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the patrol operations of the CVPD.

The following section provides a summary of the major findings, conclusions and recommendations.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chula Vista crime characteristics, a function of many factors including economic, educational, ethnic, and law enforcement activity variables, have an impact on the police resource needs of the City of Chula Vista. The data strongly suggests that, overall, Chula Vista is a comparatively safe community when ranked against its peer jurisdictions throughout the nation. Based upon both crime data and statistically valid community perceptions, Chula Vista is a safe community in comparison to most municipalities of similar size. As such, this influences the operational needs of the police department.




While is it somewhat common practice to suggest law enforcement resource needs based upon the number of sworn staff per thousand population, the MCG does not use a “per capita” or “per 1,000” ratio as an analytical tool in assessing field staffing needs. While CVPD has the lowest officer-per-1,000 ratio in San Diego County at 1.01 when compared to various peer agencies such as Oceanside, Carlsbad, National City,

•

•

•

•

• etc., the MCG does not find this metric valuable for the following important reasons:

•

Ratios do not consider the seriousness of the workload levels of the jurisdictions being compared. For example, the crime rate is not considered in any comparative analysis of workloads, specifically, the number of serious crimes in a community (e.g. homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny).

Ratios do not consider a jurisdiction’s approach to alternative service delivery or

“differential law enforcement response.” The use of civilian personnel (or lack thereof) to handle community-generated calls for service and other workloads has great potential to impact the staffing levels of sworn personnel. The level / amount of civilians (i.e. community service officers, telephone reporting, online services, etc.) can be used to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of sworn personnel.

Ratios do not consider the differences in service levels provided or philosophies with which a jurisdiction may deliver law enforcement services (e.g. communityoriented or problem-oriented policing, a reactive versus proactive approach, the utilization of other regional law enforcement resources in solving problems, etc.).

These variables contribute to the inability to compare the necessary number of field patrol personnel through a ratio or per-capita analyses.

Ratios do not consider other differences which have an impact on regular patrol staffing needs such as the existence of special enforcement / support units as well as operational approaches (e.g. the use of field citations versus transported arrests, manual versus automated field reporting systems, and whether patrol officers are expected to follow-up on certain investigations).

Ratios do not take into account geographic, weather-related (e.g. harsh winters impacting response times and thus resource needs) and topographical differences (e.g. square miles of a service area) and other response impediments which can impact patrol staffing needs.

Ratios do not take into account regularly changing population characteristics, such as jurisdictions with a significant exodus of commuters, college towns with



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations large seasonal fluctuations in population, resort communities with an influx of tourists during particular times of the year, etc.

For these reasons, the project team does not use “per capita” or “per 1,000 residents” ratios as a way for our clients to measure effectiveness in providing existing law enforcement services, or as a determinant in developing staffing needs.

Patrol staffing levels should largely be driven by the patrol officer’s available time to work, which can be classified into two categories

—

Proactive and Reactive time

(unobligated and obligated). Ultimately, the amount of proactive time is inextricably linked to the ability of officers to perform those duties and responsibilities above the basic response to community generated calls for service. Without sufficient proactive or unobligated time, a patrol operation is severely handicapped in its ability to respond effectively to local and regional crime, have reasonable response times, address trafficrelated problems, and attend to quality of life issues unique to each community.

“Reactive” time is classified as the handling of community-generated calls for service and the immediate responsibilities linked directly to that specific incidence, including reports, arrests / bookings, back-up assistance to another patrol officer on a call, etc. In effect, reactive time includes the period of work from the point at which a unit responds to a call to the point when a unit “clears for service.”

Proactive enforcement addresses all other workloads that are not in response to a community-generated call for service. These include such important services as officer self-initiated activity, proactive or preventive patrol, investigative follow-up, directed traffic enforcement, etc. It is critical to recognize that all officer self-initiated activity falls within the uncommitted time category. Proactive time availability is largely influenced by four predominant factors:


•

•



•

•

The amount of work generated by the community (calls);

The amount of staff resources available in patrol operations;

The different operational methods by which patrol conducts business; and

The geographic size of the community (“windshield time”).

The ‘proactive’ element of field patrol in many law enforcement agencies generally makes up between 40% and 60% of each officer’s shift, on average. Typically, less than 30% net proactive time available to patrol staff results in inefficient bundling of available time. Proactive time of more than 50% generally results in less than efficient use of community resources, as it is difficult to effectively manage field patrol personnel with this level of uncommitted time. Larger agencies, such as Chula Vista, do not require such large increments of proactive time unless there are particular unique and extenuating circumstances within the community. As such, a 40% proactive time target in CVPD would be reasonable.

Based on proactive time modeling that results in 22% overall proactive time for

CVPD Patrol Operations , there are currently inadequate CVPD Patrol Operations resources available to perform the most effective policing in the community.

Proactive time can be positively impacted by an agency in two fundamental ways: 1) additional sworn staff resources deployed in the field and/or, 2) operational changes in how patrol provides services. The patrol operational changes that can be adopted in any policing agency can include, but not be limited to:

•

•

Modified work/shift schedules (e.g. 12-hour shift programs).

Differential Police Response (i.e. using other resources rather than sworn personnel to address community generated calls for service).


•

•



• Verified Alarm Response (e.g. not responding to most alarms unless it is independently validated).

Reduced administrative workload (e.g. reducing report writing or jail time).

Revised dispatch strategies (e.g. changing the number of patrol officers responding to a call or revising the methods by which patrol units are deployed and dispatched in the field).

Essentially changing patrol operational practices can also have a dramatic and positive influence on proactive time availability and should be strongly considered in any

Patrol Operations study.

In summary, proactive time availability has a pervasive effect on many other law enforcement activities, realities and perceptions. It is not a function of “crime rate” or linked to the “safety” of a community; proactive time availability is critical to effectively respond to community requests for service whether they are felony crimes or less serious requests for aide. It is one of the fundamental and key metrics illustrating patrol workload, efficiency and effectiveness and ensuring appropriate proactive time to patrol operations should be considered a vital City goal.

The various adjustments that can be made to proactive time are a major theme throughout this report.

An anonymous survey was circulated to Chula Vista Police Department employees to supplement individual interviews already conducted to provide any additional input as well as the ability to quantify employee perceptions regarding a number of organizational aspects. The confidential survey was collected and analyzed in April 2012. There were a total of 149 responses which reflects the large majority of those asked to complete the survey. In summary, a majority of employees believe the greatest strengths of the department lay in their well-qualified and quality staff. These



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations staff also invested in a shared commitment to the agency and the community they serve. However, officers and many staff are optimistic that if improvements to equipment were made, positive management/leadership characteristics exhibited more frequently, and increased staffing levels were to occur, respondents could provide an even better service to the community.

The following exhibit provides a list of the principal recommendations in this report. The chapters within this report should be reviewed for a detailed discussion and analysis of each issue and the background behind each recommendation.

Recommendation: As practical, strongly negotiate for a comprehensive 12-hour shift program inlieu of a 4/10 or “hybrid combination shift” to be implemented within Chula Vista Police

Department Patrol Operations. As noted, this should be designed with three 12-hour shifts in six teams: two normal shifts and one Power Shift. Implementation of a 12-hour program will have a dramatic impact on proactive time availability and the attendant benefits.

Recommendation: Maintain the existing Patrol Operations organizational structure and supervisory staffing with one exception: five (5) lieutenants should be assigned to Patrol

Operations as Watch Commanders instead of the existing four positions. 24/7 midmanagement coverage of police operations is consistent with best practice, particularly in departments of Chula Vista’s size.

Recommendation: If a 12-hour shift program cannot be negotiated, hire five (5) police officer positions at an estimated cost of $545K annually and assign the majority to cover the daytime period. This hiring level assumes most operational recommendations herein that impact proactive time will be implemented.

Recommendation: Hire five (5) Community Service Officer positions at an estimated annual cost of $310K and deploy them to Patrol Operations irrespective of the shift schedule implemented. These staff will be used to implement differential police response activities as discussed in this report and should impact proactive patrol by approximately +5% overall.

Recommendation: Implement verified response, discussed in this report, for residential and commercial alarms (non-panic) likely resulting in a 90% reduction in these call types and increasing overall proactive time by +5%.

Recommendation: Aggressively address remaining NetRMS issues. The CVPD should implement an extended NetRMS Users Group made up of several different sworn and nonsworn positions of various ranks to meet monthly to be held accountable for addressing a

NetRMS “punch list.” Reduction in report writing time by 25% can potentially increase overall proactive time by +5%.

Recommendation: Adopt dispatching protocols and patrol operational policies to overall reduce the total average patrol units sent to calls for service from 1.86 units to 1.60 units. This level of police response is not consistent with benchmarks for officer back-up rates and should



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations be moderately lowered resulting in a positive impact to proactive time of approximately +7% overall.

Recommendation: CVPD and CMOG response times should be considered desirable targets as opposed to directives upon which to build patrol staffing levels. While an appealing customer service metric, police response time should not be a fundamental building block linked to patrol staff resources as such an approach can ultimately have undesirable outcomes for the City to include unnecessarily increased policing costs, refused building permits, etc.

Recommendation: CVPD and CMOG should adopt as a key performance objective a minimum of 38% overall proactive time annually for CVPD Patrol Operations.

Recommendation: Implement an Automatic Vehicle Locator System for Patrol Operations linked to dispatch real-time mapping thereby allowing Dispatch to deploy the closest patrol unit to a community generated call for service irrespective of sector/beat assignment. This should augment response times at an approximate installation cost of $100K for dispatch and $100K for patrol unit displays.

Recommendation: Purchase and install Corona Solutions (or equivalent) beat configuration and scheduling software which will allow near “real-time” beat re-design and shift scheduling adjustments based on various patrol workload metrics. Estimated software cost is $60,000.

Beat re-design should have a marginal impact on officer safety and response time performance.

Recommendation: Establish a Dispatch Operations performance objective of an average of one minute call receipt to unit(s) dispatched for Priority 1 calls for service designed to improve current performance by approximately 18 seconds per call.

Recommendation: Strongly consider Patrol Operations and Dispatch operational revisions as discussed in this report. These efforts should have a measurable impact on response time performance.




2. CVPD COMMUNITY PATROL DIVISION OVERVIEW

This “Phase I” report focuses on the City of Chula Vista Police Department’s

(CVPD) most visible and critical service provided by the Police Department: the

Community Patrol Division. The workload and related information utilized in this report was obtained from over 30 one-on-one interviews with CVPD management, supervisory, line, union representative, and technical personnel; eight (8) patrol ridealongs performed over a two-day period 1 ; an anonymous survey conducted of patrolrelated sworn and non-sworn staff 2 ; and a variety of independent data collection efforts made by the Matrix Consulting Group (MCG).

1. PROFILE OF COMMUNITY PATROL DIVISION’S PATROL

OPERATIONS.

The Community Patrol Division is broken into several discreet operational sections providing a variety of field services to the community. The emphasis of this

Phase I report will be placed on Patrol Operations: those staff deployed to respond to the community generated calls for service and perform other field-related enforcement activities. Patrol Operations is functionally organized with the Division as shown (to the right) in the following authorized strength organizational structure 3 .

1 Observations included four patrol officers, one agent, two K-9 officers, and one sergeant.

2 The response rate for the survey was a statistically valid 149 survey respondents.

3 As in larger departments, actual and authorized strength fluctuates significantly. The organization chart illustrates recently approved authorized assignments but will not reflect actual personnel given inter-division movement, injuries, FMLA, etc.




Community Patrol Division

Captain

(1)

Research & Analysis

Sr. Pub. Safety Analyst (1)

Public Safety Analyst (1)

Tough on Crime

Public Safety Analyst (1)

Community Relation

Comm Relations Spec. (1)

District Command

N/S Geographic Policing

Lieutenant

(2)

Comunity Resource Ofcr

(2)

Patrol Operations

Watch Commander

Lieutenant

(4)

Sergeant (12)

Agent (11)

Officers (99)

K9 Officer (5)

School Resource Program

Sergeant (1)

Officers (8)

Secretary (1)

Street Team

Sergeant (1)

Agent (2)

Offficers (8)

Traffic

Sergeant (2)

Agent (3)

Officer (8)

CSO (1)

Parking Enf Ofcr (2)

Sr. Off. Spec. (1)

Police Svc Tech (hrly)

The following sub-sections describe Patrol Operations.

(1) Patrol Operations Currently Deploys on a 4/10 Shift Schedule in Five

Distinct Shift Periods.

Patrol Operations currently deploys on a 4-day, 10-hour work week (4/10) in five distinct shift periods as shown in the following table:




Five Shift Patrol Operations Deployment Schedule

Day Shift - Early

Day Shift - Late

Swing Shift - Early

Swing Shift - Late

Shift Military Time 4

05:30 - 15:30

07:00 - 17:00

15:00 - 01:00

16:30 - 02:30

Graveyard 21:30 - 07:30

Staff are deployed in “teams” whereby one team covers the Monday-Thursday time period and the opposite team covers Thursday-Sunday 5 . Thursday overlaps are defined as “barrel” days whereby additional staff resources from the overlapping teams are available for special assignment, in-service training activities, compensatory days off, etc. Staff select a new shift assignment every six months and staff also rotate between the two different deployment time periods (days off) on a 4/2/2/4 (4-months; 2months) basis.

6

(2) Patrol Operations Deploy Geographically Over Three Sectors and Ten

Beats.

Generally speaking, CVPD Patrol Operations attempts to deploy one Beat Patrol

Unit to each of the ten beats in the three sectors as shown in the map on the following page. In the instance whereby individual beats are not covered (in various minimum staffing scenarios) then unit(s) will be assigned on a Sector basis.

4 Standard Military Time will be used regularly throughout the report. 05:30 is 5:30 a.m. while 15:30 is 3:30 p.m.

5 Day and Swing Shift (Late) are Tues-Fri and Fri-Mon with Friday overlap.

6 Typically this results in staff with seniority having the weekend Fri-Sat-Sun period off eight months out of a year.







Community generated calls for service (CGCFS), as discussed in much further detail later in the report, are distributed throughout the three sectors as follows:

Community Generated Calls for Service by Sector (2011)

Sector 3

30%

Sector 1

34%

Sector 2

36% upon their sector of origin as shown by the following three tables.

Further, with respect to types of calls for service, they vary somewhat dependent

CVPD Top 10 Calls for Service FY 2011 - Sector 1

Type of Call

Disturbance - Person

Domestic Violence

Traffic Collision

Disturbance - Noise

Check a Person's Well Being

False Burglary Alarm-Commercial

Petty Theft < $400

Psychological Evaluation

Transportation

Suspicious Person

Total/Percent of the CGCFS

Count

2,071

1,355

883

874

816

800

773

552

542

537

9,203

Percent

9.3%

6.1%

4.0%

3.9%

3.7%

3.6%

3.5%

2.5%

2.4%

2.4%

41.5%





Type of Call Count Percent

Domestic Violence

Disturbance – Person


Traffic Collision


Disturbance – Noise

Petty Theft < $400

Disturbance – Party

Disturbance – Family

Psychological Evaluation

1,381

1,344

1,237

864

781

751

709

675

583

580

Total/Percent of the CGCFS 8,905


Type of Call Count

False Burglary Alarm-Residential


Disturbance – Party

Domestic Violence

Traffic Collision

Disturbance – Person

Disturbance – Noise

Be On The Lookout

Petty Theft < $400

Suspicious Person

1,702

1,015

737

733

697

643

546

509

494

489

Percent

9.0%

5.4%

3.9%

3.9%

3.7%

3.4%

2.9%

2.7%

2.6%

2.6%

Total/Percent of the CGCFS 7,565 39.9%

(3) Patrol Operations Deploy, as Regular Practice, Minimum Staffing Levels in the Field.

Patrol staff are regularly deployed with minimum staffing levels that include

6.0%

5.8%

5.3%

3.7%

3.4%

3.2%

3.1%

2.9%

2.5%

2.5%

38.5% officers and agents (both ranks are considered “field units”). These do not include the staff assigned to the District Command geographic policing functions noted in the prior organization chart. While not memorialized in policy or Memorandum of

Understanding, such minimum staffing levels have become common practice. The minimum staffing for sergeants and lieutenants (field supervisors) can vary from shift to shift, and at times even according to available resources and operational need.




Generally speaking, however, the established minimums are understood to be as follows:

Field Units

• 9 on Graveyard shift (all days)

• 10 on Day shift (weekdays)

• 11 on Day shift (weekends)

• 13 on Swing shift (all days)

Supervisors/Managers

• At least one Sergeant (all days, all shifts)

• Either one Sergeant or one Lieutenant (all days, all shifts)

•

• At least a second Sergeant on swing shift (including either one Sergeant or one

Lieutenant)

Two additional points with regard to minimum staffing levels should be noted:

• CVPD’s K9 Units are counted in the minimum staffing deployment figures. In a number of other law enforcement agencies, these units are not counted given their specialized support unit function.

Minimum staffing numbers are calculated over the entire shift period (e.g. Swing), thereby counting minimums over the entire timeframe of Day and Swing’s current split-shift configurations.

These factors can come into play with respect to existing and alternative deployment strategies as discussed later in this report. Data noted in the above subsections is useful to derive patrol workload information as discussed throughout this chapter.




2. CHULA VISTA IS A SAFE COMMUNITY IN COMPARISON TO PEER

MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA AND PARTICULARLY IN

COMPARISON TO OTHER NATIONAL CITIES.

A wealth of information was made available to MCG from CVPD and elsewhere related to the safety of the Chula Vista community. Based on 2010 Uniform Crime

Data 7 information from the FBI, Chula Vista ranks below the average with respect to

Part I crimes per 1,000 population in California in the 150K-300K as shown in the table below.

UCR Part I Offenses per 1,000 Population: California 150K-300K Population (2010)

California City Population

Violent crime

Property crime Total Part I P-I/ 1,000

Pomona

Corona

Santa Rosa

Garden Grove

Santa Clarita

Ontario

Oceanside

Rancho Cucamonga

Oxnard

Fontana

Huntington Beach

Glendale

Moreno Valley

San Bernardino

Modesto

Fremont

Irvine

Chula Vista

152,673

153,311

158,182

166,287

170,458

172,814

173,901

176,686

189,051

192,595

193,545

196,877

197,294

199,214

203,890

205,477

217,193

229,060

449

277

724

1,624

1,398

488

120

663

877

199

767

539

375

630

650

340

691

759

4,673

3,717

5,222

8,967

9,383

4,414

2,798

5,124

4,504

3,536

4,096

3,590

2,670

4,918

3,909

3,703

4,018

3,681

5,397

3,749

4,872

4,142

3,063

5,580

4,584

4,056

4,730

4,453

5,150

4,006

5,956

10,652

10,837

4,924

2,941

5,811

Stockton

AVERAGE:

292,047 4,033

821

16,177

5,216

20,272

6,062

69

30

While the above information compares Chula Vista to its California peers, with

53

24

14

25

27

20

30

53

18

32

26

23

25

23

35

24

31

25 respect to national cities with populations ranging from 150,000 to 300,000, of the 91

7 2011 UCR Data is Preliminary. Further, CVPD’s 2011 Year End Report is not yet finalized.



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations reporting localities these communities averaged 47 Part I offenses per 1,000 population .

•

Clearly Chula Vista falls well below this metric.

According to the 2010 Chula Vista Police Department Year End Report :

• Compared to crime elsewhere in San Diego County, crime in Chula Vista is down

-32% from 2006-2010; -23% for 2008-2010; and -6% from 2009-2010.

Of the reporting incorporated communities in San Diego County, Chula Vista ranks very low at 16 th with a Violent Crime Rate ranking of 2.79 per 1,000 population compared to a 3.90 average.

8

These crime characteristics, a function of many factors including economic, educational, ethnic, and law enforcement activity variables, have an impact on the police resource needs of the City of Chula Vista. In sum, however, the data strongly suggests that, overall, Chula Vista is a comparatively safe community when ranked against its peer jurisdictions throughout the nation.

3. THE CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY TYPICALLY PERCEIVES THE

COMMUNITY AS SAFE, CVPD AS A GOOD AGENCY, AND HAS NOTED

ONLY A FEW ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE.

In mid-2007 at the height of the economic downturn the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), with input from the Chula Vista Police Department designed a survey and administered it to 2,987 Chula Vista residents (of which 888 responded) through the agency’s Service Bureau program for member agencies.

Similar surveys were conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2005. As in years past, the purpose of the survey was to learn if there have been changes in the residents’ perceptions and opinions about crime and safety and to assist the CVPD in gathering

8 2010 CVPD Year End Report, page 7, 10.



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations information to help plan for future priorities, public services, and programs.

9 The



 following important points were highlighted:



94 percent of residents reported being satisfied with the services of the CVPD.

While this satisfaction rating has consistently been high (between 89% and 93%), this was the highest to date (of the multi-year surveys conducted). When residents noted some type of dissatisfaction, it was most often related to a need for improved public relations and the perception that there were not enough police officers and response times were too slow.



Three-quarters or more of residents who had contact with officers and/or dispatchers reported satisfaction with these interactions and shared their impression that the CVPD staff was knowledgeable, fair, professional, and respectful.



The top three concerns for residents in 2007 included speeding vehicles, aggressive driving, and vehicles running red lights. With the exception of the problem of traffic accidents and speeding vehicles, the percent of respondents reporting they were concerned about other types of problems was lower in 2007 than in 1997 when the survey was first conducted.

81 percent felt safe in both residential and commercial areas during the day.

The majority of residents surveyed was satisfied with the police and did not have specific suggestions to offer. Of those who did, the most common included noting the need for increased police resources, including more patrol, placing more focus on traffic enforcement, increasing officer professionalism, and targeting specific crimes or problem areas.

10

In sum, based upon both crime data and statistically valid community perceptions, Chula Vista is a safe community in comparison to most municipalities of similar size. As such, this influences the operational needs of the police department.

9 2007 Chula Vista Police Department Resident Opinion Survey, 8/2007. SANDAG, page iii.

10 Ibid, page 3-4.




3. CVPD PATROL OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

The following chapter is designed to address many of the Request for Proposal’s

Scope of Work Task 1

– “Perform an analysis of the patrol function workload and staffing.”

1. OVERVIEW OF THE PROACTIVE PATROL ANALYTICAL MODEL AS A KEY

TO LAW ENFORCEMENT DECISION-MAKING.

While it would be useful to identify a ‘golden rule’ of law enforcement staffing needs, the utilization of various comparative measures does not adequately provide for a comprehensive evaluation of field staffing needs, nor should it be used as the primary basis for a local government to measure the effectiveness of law enforcement services.

While is it somewhat common practice to suggest law enforcement resource needs based upon the number of sworn staff per thousand population, the MCG does not use a “per capita” or “per 1,000” ratio as an analytical tool in assessing field staffing needs.

While the aforementioned 2010 Chula Vista Police Department Year End Report shows that CVPD has the lowest officer-per-1,000 ratio in San Diego County at 1.01 when compared to various peer agencies such as Oceanside, Carlsbad, National City, etc.

11 , the MCG does not find this metric valuable in most instances for the following important reasons:

• Ratios do not consider the seriousness of the workload levels of the jurisdictions being compared. For example, the crime rate is not considered in any comparative analysis of workloads, specifically, the number of serious crimes in a community (e.g. homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny).

11 2010 CVPD Year End Report, page 3.


•

•

•

•



• Ratios do not consider a jurisdiction’s approach to alternative service delivery or

“differential law enforcement response.” The use of civilian personnel (or lack thereof) to handle community-generated calls for service and other workloads has great potential to impact the staffing levels of sworn personnel. The level / amount of civilians (i.e. community service officers, telephone reporting, online services, etc.) can be used to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of sworn personnel.

Ratios do not consider the differences in service levels provided or philosophies with which a jurisdiction may deliver law enforcement services (e.g. communityoriented or problem-oriented policing, a reactive versus proactive approach, the utilization of other regional law enforcement resources in solving problems, etc.).

These variables contribute to the inability to compare the necessary number of field patrol personnel through a ratio or per-capita analyses.

Ratios do not consider other differences which have an impact on regular patrol staffing needs such as the existence of special enforcement / support units as well as operational approaches (e.g. the use of field citations versus transported arrests, manual versus automated field reporting systems, and whether patrol officers are expected to follow-up on certain investigations).

Ratios do not take into account geographic, weather-related (e.g. harsh winters impacting response times and thus resource needs) and topographical differences (e.g. square miles of a service area) and other response impediments which can impact patrol staffing needs.

Ratios do not take into account regularly changing population characteristics, such as jurisdictions with a significant exodus of commuters, college towns with large seasonal fluctuations in population, resort communities with an influx of tourists during particular times of the year, etc.

For these reasons, the project team does not use “per capita” or “per 1,000 residents” ratios as a way for our clients to measure effectiveness in providing existing law enforcement services, or as a determinant in developing staffing needs. Instead, the project team’s analysis of CVPD patrol staffing considered the need for a balance of community-generated workloads and the availability of proactive time to perform proactive policing, while considering as a backdrop the importance of officer safety as a consequence of the types of calls for service workload the community generally experiences. The following subsections describe this analytical process.




(1) The Analysis of Field Patrol Resource Requirements Should Be Based on

Actual Workloads Handled and Appropriate Targets of Proactive Patrol.

The MCG utilizes a method in which the number of police field personnel required is based on an analysis of the unique workloads and service level requirements of a community. In order to evaluate these resources and staffing issues, the project team conducted a data collection and analytical effort focusing on the

•

•

•

• following:

• Determining community generated calls for service workloads to the level of detail necessary to understand the work volume and the time required to handle such work.

The field resources used to handle calls for service and proactive workloads based on officer availability levels.

Deployment and scheduling patterns used by CVPD.

Identifying self-initiated police activities and targeting a sufficient amount of time beyond community generated calls for service, otherwise known as “reactive” workload. This time can then be utilized to perform proactive or communityoriented policing services (e.g. special enforcement of high priority areas, directed traffic enforcement, etc.).

Maintaining a deployment that would help reduce risk and maintain officer safety levels.

Field law enforcement services represent one of the areas of law enforcement operations in which staffing can be quantified based on service levels desired. Several

• factors determine the level of patrol staffing required in a community, including:

• The community generated call for service demand by time of day, and day of week.

How officers are utilized in the field, how they are scheduled, and it what manner they are deployed (e.g. one-person versus two-person patrol cruisers).

•

How calls for service are managed by a law enforcement agency. Many departments throughout the United States “manage” lower priority calls for service in a number of ways. What these methods of handling calls for service


•


FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations have in common is that they free up the time of trained, professional officers from handling lower priority routine calls so that more of their available time can be spent on calls requiring a higher level of expertise and training.

The level of service desired by the community. This reflects the amount of

“proactive” time, or “unobligated” time a community desires. This is a significant factor and primary driver impacting required patrol staffing levels. Unobligated time involves time not spent handling community generated calls for service and reflects proactive time for which an officer is available for community policing, directed or preventive patrol, self-initiated activity (i.e. observations, including suspicious pedestrians or vehicles, etc.), and other approaches for addressing crime problems, quality of life issues, etc.

The project team has employed a model based on these decision points in evaluating officer field staffing for the CVPD in terms of workload, service levels, and overall operations. The following section identifies and discusses the various characteristics and elements of the field staffing model, and how reactive and proactive time is calculated.

(2) Workload and Data Elements Utilized in the Patrol Staffing Model.

One of the primary responsibilities of a patrol officer is responding to and handling community generated calls for service. Further, workload related to these calls for service, including reports, arrests / bookings, back-up assistance to another patrol officer on a call, etc., as well as the associated times for these activities, are primary responsibilities of the officer. These elements are fundamental in deriving the total field staffing levels required based on desired services levels. These elements are further discussed in the following sub-sections.

(2.1) Patrol Workloads.

The first critical data element required to analyze field resources is to document the primary workloads handled by patrol officers. As stated, one of the primary responsibilities of an officer is to respond to community generated calls for service.




These calls certainly do not represent all workload, however, such as officer-initiated events, officer observations in the field resulting in a contact, traffic stops, investigative follow-up, administrative time or other activities reflected in Computer-Aided Dispatch

(CAD) or other records. Calls for Service, as defined herein, represent contacts from the community, generally via E 9-1-1 telephone and 7-digit telephone calls ultimately resulting in one dispatched incident, regardless of the number of patrol units sent . It is critical to understand this fundamental definition in order to comprehend how future analyses are performed in this report. Community generated calls for service are not intended to reflect all workload that patrol officers perform. In fact, many law enforcement agencies define “calls for service” as any relevant law enforcement incident, whether initiated by the community or instigated by an officer. While this is not atypical, it must be understood that it does not reflect our methodology for staff evaluation. By example, the following pie chart displays the proportion of incidents generated from various sources based on Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records provided to the project team 12 .

12 Data is based on computer records for calendar 2011.




2011 CVPD Incidents by Category (105,492 Unique Records)

Officer Initiated

39%

Calls for Service

61%

As shown, 61% of 2011 incidents are definitively identified by the MCG as community generated calls for service (CFS) requiring police response. These community generated calls for service reflect workload that requires a mandatory response from the law enforcement agency; the community expects service when it telephones its agency. Of smaller proportion, at 39%, is on-view or self-initiated activities. The calls for service and other data that are available by analyzing CAD and other records must be placed in the following context:

•

•

This data reflects 105,492 13 unique event recordings in CAD in 2011.

There were approximately 64,251 community generated calls for service in calendar 2011 in Chula Vista, this compares to 67,195 in 2010.

14 Although calls vary by both month and day, this equates to approximately 176 calls each day.

13 Note that MCG received both CAD incident-based data and a grand total summary spreadsheet which showed

106,165 total events. Because the error rate is less than 1/100 th percent, we will use the detailed CAD data information throughout the report.


•



•

There were approximately 41,241 self-initiated activities in 2011. This is equivalent to approximately 113 of these activities per day.

Community generated calls for service distribution by hour, as shown in the graph below, reveal peaks and valleys in call for service workload with both commonalities as well as differences from many law enforcement jurisdictions.

Generally speaking, early morning hours have the lowest call for service volumes

(this is common) with the lull at approximately 0500. Highest activity, however, is in mid-afternoon at 1500 hours with the greatest activity, on average occurring prior to the “rush hour” periods associated with commuter traffic. Calls for services in other agencies often peak at either the rush hour (approximately 5-6 p.m.) or the few hours surrounding Midnight; only the former peak is applicable to

CVPD. Indeed, workload actually declines in the evenings/nights compared to rush hour periods whereas in a number of other agencies calls escalate more rapidly from late afternoon to midnight.

Avg. Calls for Service per Hour Each Day (2011)

12.0

10.4

10.0

9.1

8.0

6.0

6.3

4.0

2.0

2.1

0.0

• As shown in the following table, and as is generally typical, the Friday and

Saturday time period is the busier days of the week.

14 2010 CVPD Year End Report, page 2.




Based on the data shown in the table below as well as other information, further workload analysis can be accomplish ed as described in the MCG’s models for patrol staffing and deployment discussed in the following sections.

Calendar 2011 Community Generated Calls for Service by Time of Day and Day of Week

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

Hour of Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

435

455

430

497

510

493

475

477

489

574

672

716

Sat

553

417

406

248

162

124

141

215

333

380

416

455

495

566

524

604

535

560

585

494

514

482

570

572

Fri

264

226

181

138

117

116

175

272

416

471

506

537

463

491

471

564

557

510

523

460

405

427

384

315

Thu

232

163

173

124

91

112

196

309

422

462

456

455

503

524

544

588

530

497

522

480

470

393

416

320

Wed

225

173

149

110

92

114

194

339

457

483

488

492

496

525

539

590

524

581

471

470

422

410

359

284

Tue

229

161

127

100

86

99

176

350

415

480

488

498

516

508

486

582

516

507

523

496

436

417

348

294

Mon

230

189

158

105

83

88

163

292

426

492

472

513

402

417

423

378

439

467

436

434

447

399

385

347

Sun

582

462

439

238

175

109

131

179

255

347

380

399

Grand Total 8,670 8,840 8,880 9,103 8,765 9,920 10,073 64,251

(2.2) Handling Time.

A critical component of the Matrix Consulting Group’s patrol staffing model is the

Grand Total

2,315

1,791

1,633

1,063

806

762

1,176

1,956

2,724

3,115

3,206

3,349

3,310

3,486

3,417

3,803

3,611

3,615

3,535

3,311

3,183

3,102

3,134

2,848 evaluation of total time spent by patrol personnel handling community generated calls for service. There are a variety of factors that go into determining the time devoted to the “average” call for service. These include the time from call dispatch to call clearance for the primary unit handling the call, the number of calls where a back-up



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations unit (or units) was deployed, how long such back-ups were on scene, report writing time, and jail/booking time. In nearly all instances, data manipulations of CAD computer information or other source data were able to derive these factors for the Chula Vista

Police Department. Information derived from CVPD records can be juxtaposed against various benchmarks that the MCG has developed relative to average time required for specific tasks. The following table summarizes the important data factors to arrive at handling time. Observations regarding this data follow the table.

Factors Involved in Determining How Long a “Call for Service” Takes

Factor in Call For

Service Handling Time

How Data was Determined Benchmark

Primary Unit Handling

Time (dispatch to clear)

Benchmark based on MCG national experience. From the CAD system, 64,251 community generated calls for service dispatched to field personnel for CY 2011. The project team derived an average handling time of 40 minutes. This is comprised of 14 minutes of travel time and 26 minutes of on-scene time, on average.

30-40 minutes/call

Average Back-up

Units per Call for

Service

0.50 units/call

Average Time Back-up

Unit(s) at Scene per

Call

Average Time All

Units at Scene

Benchmark based on MCG national experience. Data based on calendar 2011

CAD data run.

Benchmark based on MCG national experience of ~75% of Primary Unit Time handling time.

Our field observations and discussions with officers indicate the primary back-up unit is usually concurrently dispatched thus occupying

~90% of Primary Back-ups time. This equates to back-up units out of service in minutes =

(36x0.86=).

Sum of Primary and Average Back-up.

11.25-15.0 minutes/call

41.25-55.0 min/call

CVPD Time

Required

40

minutes/call

0.86 units/call

31 minutes/call

71

min/call




Report Writing Time

Report Writing Calls for Service Allocation

While most incident report writing time is not available in CAD records, reports in Chula Vista

Police Department are written at the end of a shift or during calls and documented through external records (NETRMS). As a result, the project team added time for reports based on internal records and internal data. This includes

19,353 reports requiring officer action. Based on various interviews we found that officers are taking an average of one-hour to complete a report. This includes any equipment failure

(e.g., internet timeout, NetRMS lock-out, etc).

Benchmark data is based on other departments. CVPD has a 30% report-to-CFS ratio.

Jail Run Time Calls for

Service Allocation

Assumed to be 75 minutes per arrest / booking.

Based on interview and other data provided by

Chula Vista Police Department.

30 min/report

25%-50% report-to-

CFS ratio in other dept. resulting in

7.5 to 15 min / call for each CFS.

45-60 minutes per booking are typically used for booking times.

TOTAL FIELD TIME DEDICATED PER COMMUNITY-GENERATED

CALL FOR SERVICE

60

min/report

18.1 min/call

4.4 min/call

93.4

15 minutes per call

As shown above, the MCG allocated average handling time per communitygenerated call for services at 93.4 minutes based upon calendar 2011 data provided by

CVPD. This includes time spent by all primary and back-up units, includes travel time and on-scene time, and allocates all arrest/booking (jail) time and all report writing time.

The following additional observations are noted:

• With regard to call handling time for a primary CVPD unit, total time from dispatch to call clearance is 40 minutes —within the upper benchmark regarding calls for service time required.

• With respect to back-up units, the following observations are noted:

15 -0.1 due to rounding.




Calls for Service Avg. Patrol Units Sent by Sector and Resulting Back-up Rate (2011)

Sector

1

# of CGCFS

22,152

Total Units Sent

43,583

Avg. Units

1.97

Back Up Rate

0.97

2

3

Average

23,139

18,960

64,251

43,853

32,147

119,583

1.90

1.70

1.86

0.90

0.70

0.86

Priority

1

2

3

4

5

Calls for Service Avg. Patrol Units Sent by Sector by Priority (2011)

Sector 1

4.36

Sector 2

3.93

Sector 3

4.12

All Sectors

4.14

2.65

1.87

2.44

1.82

2.14

1.76

2.42

1.82

1.27

1.98

1.24

1.86

1.23

1.55

1.25

1.81

The proportion of back-up units deployed to Chula Vista calls for service is higher than regularly observed in other policing agencies. Calls for service in many other national communities average a 0.4 to 0.6 back-up rate with an overall average of a 0.5 back-up rate , meaning an average of 1.5 units responds to each call for service. CVPD has an average of 1.86 units responding to a call, resulting in a notably higher than benchmark back-up rate of 0.86 and one of the higher backup rate’s MCG has seen in any of our past client agencies.

A recent

MCG client, Tacoma, Washington (of similar population at 200K) with a Part I crimes per 1,000 ratio nearly thee-times that of Chula Vista had a back-up rate of

0.62. Indeed, the agency with the highest back-up rate was Sunnyvale,

California, with 1.3 units, on average, backing up the primary unit. Further, the total number of patrol units sent by priority is very reasonable overall. The fact that CVPD can deploy units such that this number of patrol staff is readily available on each call is not common, as many other agencies cannot approach such multi-unit responses. Of importance, such back-up rates result in officers being occupied in this role regularly, reducing proactive time and being unavailable for all but the highest priority calls until they clear from scene.

•

In sum, the back-up rate is an important workload driver for CVPD patrol operations, is higher than what several other law enforcement agencies experience, and is an important policy decision that should be seriously reviewed.

With regard to report writing and other calls for service linked functions, these estimates are largely based on dozens of interviews conducted by CVPD staff.




In sum, these formulae link the major activities performed by patrol officers to community generated calls for service. The resultant time of 93.4 minutes is a fundamental building block in determining resources necessary to provide efficient and effective patrol services.

(2.3) Officer Availability.

Another critical workload element to determine staffing requirements is the amount of annual time available for field personnel to perform their work. A typical employee is paid for 2,080 regular hours per year; however, these employees perform core business duties well below this figure due to scheduled and unscheduled leave, administrative requirements, etc. The MCG defines net availability as the number of hours that an officer (or any other employee) is available to perform his/her key roles and responsibilities after the impact of leaves and other necessary administrative responsibilities have been subtracted from his/her gross 2,080 scheduled hours of work.

One major driver in net availability is how many hours one individual is available to work annually after both scheduled leave (e.g. vacation and holidays) and unscheduled leave

(e.g. bereavement and sick time). In public safety this can vary widely largely dependent on the benefit (e.g. leave) packages offered to staff. Further, although officers are assigned to shifts after leave contributions are calculated, they are not available to perform core business work until after various administrative time is subtracted from their assignment, per policy or otherwise. These factors must also be incorporated to develop net availability. Illustrative factors that incorporate administrative leave are summarized below:

• Meals are calculated at one-half hour for meals per MOU. Experience suggests, however, that meals are not always taken.


•

•



•

Shift Briefing and Equipment Assignment is based on daily activities performed at the beginning of shift and is calculated at an average of 30 minutes.

Mandated/Essential Training is required training provided to officers. Typically this is done as inservice during “barrel day” and is calculated at 60 hours annually.

Vehicle Fueling is typically scheduled for 5 minutes per shift and is done as a courtesy at the end of shift. This is an estimate b ased on our and CVPD’s experience.

Based upon the above factors and data made available to MCG, the following net annual availability is calculated for each person.

Net Annual Availability – CVPD Patrol Operations Line Staff

Calendar Year 2011

Total Paid Annual Work Hours

Average Leave Usage

Total Unavailable Hours After Leave

Net Hours Worked

% Annual Availability

Hours Lost (meals, briefing, fueling etc) @ 1.17 hours/avail shift

Average On-shift Court, In-Service Training

Total Available Hours Per Year

Est. Hours/ Patrol

Officer/Agent

2,080

412

412

1,668

80.2%

180

90

1,488

Source

Payroll

Leave Report

Field Interviews

Field Interviews

% Net Annual Availability 71.5%

(2.4) The Impact of Net Hours Worked and Ultimately Net Availability on Patrol

Deployment Strategies and Costs.

The impact of Net Hours Worked (1,688 per annum) on Patrol Operations is significant in terms of both resource needs and overall costs, particularly when juxtaposed against stated minimum staffing requirement s for patrol. Using the table’s data above, and a typical shift scheduling profile used by CVPD to include the overlap or barrel day staffing 16 , the following matrix models how the average number of officers that would be available during any given time period of the week. This includes both K9

16 MCG used mid-November 2011 shift deployment schedules for calculation and illustrative purposes.



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations and agent staff (those built in to CVPD’s minimum staffing requirements) but excludes supervision positions.

Model: Average Patrol Officers/Agents Available Daily Based on Net Hours Worked (1,668/yr)

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

Sun

24.1

16.0

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.8

16.8

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

15.2

21.7

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

24.1

24.1

24.1

Mon

23.3

16.0

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.0

16.0

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

14.4

20.9

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

23.3

23.3

23.3

Tue

23.3

16.0

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.0

16.0

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

13.6

20.0

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

23.3

23.3

23.3

Wed

23.3

16.0

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.0

16.0

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

12.8

13.6

20.0

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

23.3

23.3

23.3

Thu

40.9

25.7

19.2

19.2

19.2

32.9

32.9

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

21.7

28.1

21.7

21.7

21.7

21.7

40.9

40.9

40.9

Fri

30.5

22.5

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.8

16.8

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

21.7

34.5

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

30.5

30.5

30.5

14.4

15.2

21.7

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

24.1

24.1

24.1

This information in the table above can be compared to minimum patrol staffing

Sat

24.1

16.0

9.6

9.6

9.6

16.8

16.8

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4

14.4 requirements. In a number of instances (as shown in yellow) present deployment strategies result in a schedule that will field minimum staff. Given this is a model that allocates leave time equally throughout all day and time periods, it does not account for the vagaries associated with real scheduling such as unexpected and unscheduled absences, and other day-to-day issues faced in scheduling staff. Further, this model


1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500


FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations includes both the agent position and the K9 position which should be reserved for their primary support duties as opposed to included as a primary call for service responders.

Finally, the model shown does not yet include the administrative time lost to officers as a result of meals, etc. Ideally, minimum staffing requirements are based on a “safety philosophy” whereby minimum staff reflect the number of officers available at any time to be safe in the field. When accounting for this administrative time and modeling based on overall Net Availability, the following table is developed.

Model: Average Patrol Officers/Agents Available Daily Based on Net Availability (1,488/yr)

Sun

21.5

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

13.6

19.3

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

21.5

21.5

21.5

Mon

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.9

18.6

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

20.7

Tue

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.2

17.9

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

20.7

Wed

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.2

17.9

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

20.7

Thu

36.5

22.9

17.2

17.2

17.2

29.3

29.3

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

19.3

25.0

19.3

19.3

19.3

19.3

36.5

36.5

36.5

Fri

27.2

20.0

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

19.3

30.7

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

27.2

27.2

27.2

Sat

21.5

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

13.6

19.3

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

21.5

21.5

21.5




In sum, based on the data, CVPD staffs Patrol Operations such that with the exception of the 4/10 schedule overlap (barrel days) and the shift overlap periods (e.g. between Swing and Graveyard), staffing levels are near or at stated minimum staffing requirements.

(2.5) Calculating Resource Needs Based on Available Time.

Upon developing community generated calls for service data and officer availability information, the final step in determining resource requirements is calculating the proportion of proactive time available to patrol services. In effect, patrol staffing levels should largely be driven by the patrol officer’s time, which can be classified into two categories

—proactive and reactive time (unobligated and obligated). Ultimately, the amount of proactive time is inextricably linked to the ability of officers to perform those duties and responsibilities above the basic response to community generated calls for service. Without sufficient proactive or unobligated time, a patrol operation is severely handicapped in its ability to respond effectively to local and regional crime, have reasonable response times, address traffic-related problems, and attend to quality of life issues unique to each community. The following section describes time definitions in further detail.

(2.6) Response-

Oriented Patrol Requirements (Also Known as “Reactive,

Committed or Obligated Time”).

Reactive, Committed, or Obligated time is classified as the handling of community-generated calls for service and the immediate responsibilities linked directly to that specific incidence, including reports, arrests / bookings, back-up assistance to another patrol officer on a call, etc. In effect, reactive time includes the period of work from the point at which a unit responds to a call to the point when a unit “clears for



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations service.” The following points are noted with respect to response-oriented or reactive

•

• time.

•

•

This is a primary mission of any law enforcement field patrol force.

Clearly defined areas of responsibility and clearly defined back-up relationships are a core concept for consistent “committed time” service delivery.

A Department should have clearly defined response policies in place – this includes: prioritization of calls, response time targets for each priority, back-up policies, and supervisor on-scene policies. In the absence of such formal policies, common practice (or ideally best practice guidelines) can be used.

This Reactive or Committed time workload in many communities generally makes up an average of between 40% and 60% of each officer’s net available time per shift. This includes the time to prepare reports, transport and book prisoners, and provide field back-up. The concept of Reactive (and Proactive) time is widely acknowledged by various established bodies, including the

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Northwestern Universities Police

Allocation Model, etc.

The calculation of reactive or committed time is one of the cornerstones to patrol

•

• staffing level findings, conclusions and recommendations.

(2.7) Proactive Patrol Requirements (Also Known as “Uncommitted or

Unobligated Time”).

The following points are noted with respect to Proactive or Uncommitted time:

• Proactive enforcement addresses all other workloads that are not in response to a community-generated call for service. These include such important services as officer self-initiated activity, proactive or preventive patrol, investigative followup, directed traffic enforcement, etc. It is critical to recognize that all self-initiated activity falls within the uncommitted time category.

A Department should have clearly defined uses for uncommitted time. Officers should know what they are expected to do with time between calls for service.

The ‘proactive’ element of field patrol in many law enforcement agencies generally makes up between 40% and 60% of each officer’s shift, on average.

Typically, less than 30% net proactive time available to patrol staff results in inefficient bundling of available time – i.e., uncommitted time comes in intervals too short to be effectively used by field personnel. Proactive time of more than

50% generally results in less than efficient use of community resources, as it is



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations difficult to effectively manage field patrol personnel with this level of uncommitted time. There are important exceptions, however, to these ratios that can be impacted by such issues as officer safety, response times, etc. For example, very small agencies with an extremely small contingent of field staff must have high levels of proactive time, often in the 60% range, to address response time, potential officer safety, and other performance-related issues. Larger agencies, such as Chula Vista, do not require such large increments of proactive time unless there are particular unique and extenuating circumstances within the community. As such, a 40% proactive time target would be reasonable.

The calculation of proactive time is fundamental to staffing level findings, conclusions and recommendations. These elements are further discussed in the following sections.

3. BASED ON THE PROACTIVE TIME MODEL THERE IS INSUFFICIENT

PROACTIVE TIME AT CVPD.

This section provides the MCG’s analysis of proactive time calculation related to the Chula Vista Police Department’s patrol services.

(1) Proactive Time Targeting.

The MCG developed an analysis of proactive time to assist in the evaluation of current patrol deployment and determine staff resource allocation and, ultimately, likely staff requirements. The concept of proactive time is very important in law enforcement; reiterating, it is the amount of time available to field deployed officers after handling community generated calls for service and related workloads. The concept of Reactive

(and Proactive) time is widely acknowledged by various established bodies, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Northwestern Universities Police

Allocation Model, etc. If field personnel are committed to calls for service response a large proportion of the time and have little “unobligated” time, they have little capability to undertake self-initiated activity, impact the root causes of crime and quality of life issues, or to work closely with citizens of the community. Moreover, field personnel with



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations little uncommitted time find it difficult to produce response times that are generally satisfactory. This is particularly problematic for emergency responses where life is potentially endangered or property severely jeopardized. Police departments that have developed a problem-oriented or community policing program based on effective use of proactive time typically have an average range of 40% - 45% uncommitted time, but can reach up to 50% or higher dependent upon the unique operating circumstances of the law enforcement agency. Those agencies that are “response-oriented” and do not subscribe to such theories as problem-oriented policing, community-oriented policing, geographic-based policing or other such initiatives promulgated over the last few decades can typically operate at a proactive time level of approximately 35% with various risk to response times, officer back-up availability, etc.

Several key factors should be kept in mind when reviewing the analysis of

•

• proactive time and the modeling technique behind it.

• Proactive time availability was calculated using the community generated calls for service methodology and net availability and other information provided in the preceding sections.

Proactive time availability is based on 2011 computer-aided dispatch and other data and represents a “snap-shot” in time; it may not reflect what is occurring now or what is planned to occur in the future, but it can certainly be representative of near-term patrol operations and thus can drive staffing level requirements.

Proactive time calculations are based on a few fundamental assumptions that do not completely mirror reality. By example, based on the calls for service time calculations, it assumes reports and arrests/bookings are equally distributed throughout the 24/7 cycle. This, of course, is extremely unlikely, as arrests and reports ebb and flow dependent upon several variables. Also note that the proactive time calculation assumes that meals and administrative duties are equally distributed and provided throughout a shift. However, these activities are likely put on hold or eliminated until, by example, a call for service backlog can be handled. Finally, the proactive time model averages officer scheduled and unscheduled leave time and cannot account for the day-to-day realities of the


•


FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations impact of multiple unscheduled absences, etc. Despite these assumptions that must be used given the vagaries of patrol workload, proactive time calculations are the soundest methodology for patrol services staffing and scheduling projections.

Proactive time calculations can change dependent upon the number of patrol officers deployed and assigned to each time period. The model is dynamic in this fashion as officers are added or removed in any time period, proactive time changes.

The following section describes proactive time availability currently in CVPD.

(2) Proactive Time Calculation Walk-Through.

Field officer deployments as reflected by both staffing and scheduling options used by an agency, impact proactive time significantly and, by association, the implied ability to perform in the most productive fashion. Further, proactive time is impacted by the way a law enforcement agency actually conducts its business. By example, the rate of officer back-up or the time required to complete reports impacts proactive time calculations. The sections that follow show hourly proactive time levels and overall proactive time based on these deployment strategies.

(2.1) Proactive Time Levels

– Calls for Service Workload by Hour/Day.

Based upon the data provided, the MCG developed a table showing the amount of time dedicated to handling patrol-based community-generated calls for service by hour and by day of week. This data calculates all previously noted data elements shown in this report, including calls for service information, call handling information, and primary versus secondary unit s’ responses data. In effect, the data is founded on the previously noted 93.4 minutes average handling time for a call for service . The following table shows the total amount of minutes necessary to handle calls for service each day based upon twelve mo nths’ worth of 2011 calls for service information.


•

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000



Time/Day

0000

Total (average) Minutes Required to Handle Community Generated Calls for Service

Workload

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

0100

0200

0300

0400

1,045.4 413.1 411.3 404.1 416.7 474.2 974.5

829.8 339.5 289.2 310.7 292.8 405.9 734.9

788.5 283.8 228.1 267.6 310.7 325.1 715.5

427.5 188.6 179.6 197.6 222.7 247.9 437.0

0500

0600

0700

0800

314.3 149.1 154.5 165.2 163.5 210.2 285.5

195.8 158.1 177.8 204.8 201.2 208.4 218.5

235.3 292.8 316.1 348.5 352.0 314.3 248.5

321.5 524.5 628.7 608.9 555.0 488.6 378.9

0900

1000

1100

458.0 765.2 745.4 820.8 758.0 747.2 586.8

623.3 883.7 862.2 867.5 829.8 846.0 669.7

682.5 847.8 876.5 876.5 819.0 908.9 733.1

716.7 921.4 894.5 883.7 817.3 964.5 801.8

2100

2200

2300

722.1 926.8 890.9 903.5 831.6 889.1 766.6

749.0 912.4 943.0 941.2 881.9 1,016.6 801.8

759.8 872.9 968.1 977.1 846.0 941.2 757.8

678.9 1,045.4 1,059.7 1,056.1 1,013.0 1,084.9 875.8

788.5 926.8 941.2 952.0 1,000.5 960.9 898.8

838.8 910.7 1,043.6 892.7 916.0 1,005.8 868.8

783.1 939.4 846.0 937.6 939.4 1,050.8 837.1

779.5 890.9 844.2 862.2 826.2 887.3 840.6

802.9 783.1 758.0 844.2 727.4 923.2 861.7

716.7 749.0 736.4 705.9 767.0 865.7 1,011.5

691.5 625.1 644.8 747.2 689.7 1,023.8 1,184.2

623.3 528.1 510.1 574.8 565.8 1,027.4 1,261.8

Particular highlights regarding the above information include:

• As with the calls for service distribution noted previously, the amount of time dedicated to calls for service workload generally peaks around the 1500 hour timeframe with the 1500-1800 time-block the busiest of the day excluding the

Friday Night to early Saturday morning period.

Calls for service workload, with the exception of the weekend period, is extremely low in the early morning hours (0300-0500).

These workload fluctuations could result in potentially varied staffing requirements throughout the week as discussed subsequently.




(2.2) Proactive Time Levels

– Staffing Pattern Impact.

The deployment approach of an agency impacts calculated proactive time levels.

By example, the current team-based day-off schedules in use by CVPD generally results in the same number of officers on each of the shifts for most of the days of week

(excluding Thursday / Friday barrel days). Barrel days allows for use of patrol officers in different capacities, including directed patrol activities, in-service training for many staff, scheduled days off, etc. Additionally the deployment of patrol units in the previously noted back-up capacity also significantly impacts proactive time availability as these personnel resources are effectively occupied and not typically available to do work except in the highest priority calls where they will likely clear for service. While patrol workload modeling cannot specifically account for certain variables (such as how many officers are doing other activities than patrol on barrel days) it can account for important variables such as net officer availability, back-up rates, etc. Thus, the net officer availability table previously shown illustrates one foundation for proactive time calculations. Consequently, the following table reiterates the number of officers potentially “available” to respond to workload during any given time period.




Total (Average) CVPD Officers FTEs Available Based on Schedule

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100 17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

19.3

25.0

19.3

19.3

19.3

19.3

36.5

36.5

Thu

36.5

22.9

17.2

17.2

17.2

29.3

29.3

17.9

17.9

17.9

17.9

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.2

17.9

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

Wed

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.2

17.9

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

Tue

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

11.4

11.4

11.4

11.4

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.9

18.6

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

20.7

20.7

Mon

20.7

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

14.3

14.3

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.2

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

13.6

19.3

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

21.5

21.5

Sun

21.5

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

21.5 20.7 20.7 20.7 36.5 27.2 21.5

For modeling purposes, and reiterating, administrative time is spread throughout

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

19.3

30.7

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

27.2

27.2

Fri

27.2

20.0

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

18.6

18.6

18.6

18.6

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

13.6

19.3

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

21.5

21.5

Sat

21.5

14.3

8.6

8.6

8.6

15.0

15.0

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9 the shift period; in practicality this does not occur but given such administrative time can occur throughout the shift, this method of distribution is the most appropriate approach.

(2.3) Proactive Time Analysis Indicates Chula Vista’s Current Patrol Operations

Staffing Levels are Deficient.

Based on officer net availability, the following minutes are available per hour per day to perform patrol-related work.




Minutes per Hour/Day to Available Perform Patrol Related Work

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1,287.1 1,244.2 1,244.2 1,244.2 2,188.0 1,630.3 1,287.1

858.1 858.1 858.1 858.1 1,372.9 1,201.3 858.1

514.8 514.8 514.8 514.8 1,029.7 514.8 514.8

514.8 514.8 514.8 514.8 1,029.7 514.8 514.8

514.8 514.8 514.8 514.8 1,029.7 514.8 514.8

901.0 858.1 858.1 858.1 1,759.0 901.0 901.0

901.0 858.1 858.1 858.1 1,759.0 901.0 901.0

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 686.4 686.4 1,072.6 1,115.5 772.3

815.2 772.3 729.3 729.3 1,158.4 1,158.4 815.2

1,158.4 1,115.5 1,072.6 1,072.6 1,501.6 1,844.8 1,158.4

772.3 729.3 729.3 729.3 1,158.4 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 729.3 729.3 1,158.4 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 729.3 729.3 1,158.4 1,115.5 772.3

772.3 729.3 729.3 729.3 1,158.4 1,115.5 772.3

1,287.1 1,244.2 1,244.2 1,244.2 2,188.0 1,630.3 1,287.1

1,287.1 1,244.2 1,244.2 1,244.2 2,188.0 1,630.3 1,287.1

1,287.1 1,244.2 1,244.2 1,244.2 2,188.0 1,630.3 1,287.1

The calls for service workload minutes shown in the earlier table and the minutes of patrol work available shown above are used to calculate both proactive and reactive time available. The following table shows the amount of proactive time calculated based upon the modeling exercise:




Proactive Time Levels – Based Upon CVPD Scheduled Deployment Levels

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

1400

1500

1600

Sun

19%

3%

-53%

17%

39%

Mon

67%

60%

45%

63%

71%

Tue

67%

66%

56%

65%

70%

Wed

68%

64%

48%

62%

68%

78%

74%

58%

41%

82%

66%

28%

-5%

79%

63%

76%

59%

8% 11%

-9% -20%

19% -21% -26% -26%

12% -16% -28% -28%

7% -26% -30% -29%

7% -27% -30% -32%

3% -25% -37% -37%

2% -20% -41% -42%

17% -35% -45% -45%

32% 17% 12% 11%

Thu

81%

79%

70%

78%

84%

89%

80%

48%

29%

23%

24%

24%

22%

18%

21%

13%

33%

77%

65%

56%

33%

24%

19%

14%

20%

Fri

71%

Sat

24%

66% 14%

37% -39%

52%

59%

15%

45%

9%

16%

6%

48%

-4%

2%

-7%

22%

76%

72%

51%

24%

13%

5%

-4%

1%

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

-9% -25% -43% -22%

-1% -29% -16% -29%

-1% -22% -16% -18%

-4% -7% -4% -16%

40%

50%

58%

41%

48%

59%

43%

40%

54%

21%

19%

29%

37%

65%

68%

74%

10% -13%

6% -8%

20% -9%

17% -12%

47%

37%

37%

21%

8%

2%

-12%

-8%

-2%

2%

43%

2200

2300

44%

46%

52%

43%

48%

AVERAGE: 21% 16% 13% 11% 47% 35% 13%

OVERALL WEEKLY AVG: 22%

Note that given the mathematical modeling associated with proactive time there

AVERAGE

57%

50%

23%

50%

62%

79%

69%

37%

13%

1%

-2%

-6%

-5%

-11%

-9%

-14%

25% are negative results in several hour blocks. Recall that all time subtracted from the total officer net hours available is equally allocated throughout the model. What actually occurs in these “negative time blocks” is typically officers are not eating, not writing reports, not performing other administrative functions, are not performing traffic stops, are leaving backup scenes early, etc., and are typically “running from call to call” while dispatch operations queues lower priority calls for later response or dispatches



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations specialized units (School Resource Officers 17 / Traffic) instead. In effect, the calls for service proactive time modeling is more accurate the broader the database (e.g. each day of week, each shift, or overall) as opposed to specific time blocks. The following is noted regarding the data in the table.

•

Overall proactive time for the 24-hour period is calculated at 22%

– well below the proactive targets noted previously and some of the lowest proactive times

MCG has seen in the last several years. There are wide variations dependent upon the hour of the day.

• As shown by the highlight, proactive time levels fall below the desirable time of

40% the majority of time blocks.

• As shown above, proactive time levels vary considerably throughout the 24-hour period with sufficient proactive time only available on weekdays during most of

Graveyard shift and later evenings.

•

•

The proactive time model is including the time available for K9 and Agent staff.

These personnel are included into the CVPD minimum staffing requirements and thus must be assumed available to be used as a primary call for service responder as needs dictate. In fact, however, these staff are regularly used in only a back-up, support, or supervisory capacity thus resulting in lower proactive time for the remaining patrol officers fielded.

While proactive time varies significantly dependent upon the time of day and day of week proactive time is further differentiated by the major time periods

(somewhat coinciding with existing work shifts) as shown below.

Proactive Time Modeling by CVPD Major Time Periods

Days (8am – 4pm) Nights (Midnight - 8am)

-4%

Afternoon/Evening (4pm-

Midnight)

17% 54%

With the exception of Graveyard, these proactive time levels are entirely insufficient and thus can impact service delivery to the community significantly.

Indeed, the model as it relates to daytime periods indicates the patrol officers are likely running from call-to-call with no real ability to perform any proactive activity of significance.

17 While specialized units such as the School Resource Officers are most often deployed to calls arising at school addresses, this workload was not abstracted from the call for service modeling as it is statistically insignificant. By example, the most frequent school location, the Chula Vista High School, had 153 calls for the entire year. This would impact the proactive time formula infinitesimally.




Based on proactive time modeling, there are inadequate CVPD Patrol Operations resources available to perform the most effective policing in the community. Indeed,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• such low levels of proactive patrol do impact, or likely impact, the following:

• The 2007 citizen survey perceptions noting police response times are perceived as slow and there are not enough officers. Since 2007, staffing levels in CVPD have further declined.

•

An over 89% employee survey response indicating staff resources are inadequate to meet the current law enforcement needs of the city.

An over 89% employee survey response indicating there is not sufficient staff to perform safely and effectively during field incidents.

An over 89% employee survey response from patrol staff that disagree “morale is high in patrol.”

An over 83% employee survey response indicating present staffing levels have impacted CVPD’s ability to meet service expectations.

A near 70% employee survey perception that proactive time available is “poor.”

A continued inability to meet many response time targets.

The need for specialized units and assignments such as K9 and agents to regularly be used to meet minimum patrol staffing requirements.

The use of overtime for minimum staffing coverage.

An on-going perception that officer safety is at risk.

A frequent perception that police management is disengaged from patrol operations, that city political representatives are not supportive, and that public safety is not a high priority for the City.

In summary, proactive time availability has a pervasive effect on many other law enforcement activities, realities and perceptions. It is one of the fundamental and key metrics illustrating patrol workload, efficiency and effectiveness and ensuring appropriate proactive time to patrol operations should be considered a vital City goal.




The various adjustments that can be made to proactive time are a major theme through the remainder of the report.

4. THE PROACTIVE TIME ANALYSIS IS ONE CRITICAL COMPONENT IN

DEVELOPING PATROL RESOURCE NEEDS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER

CONSIDERATIONS.

There are several issues to be considered beyond that of proactive time availability. Balancing proactive time throughout the 24-hour period with appropriate staffing to help facilitate officer safety is one important objective. How officers use proactive time is another consideration. Beyond these framing issues, current staffing levels for Patrol Operations indicate CVPD has less than sufficient staff levels to efficiently and effectively perform proactive community-response policing services in many instances.

Ultimately however, there are other important factors that drive decisionmaking. As shown in the prior section, the proactive time model shows an imbalance in proactive time across the varied time periods and shifts despite overall proactive time averages that are low. This outcome is just one of several considerations that should be addressed, if possible, when evaluating staffing needs, operational modifications and deployment options. The following sections discuss various deployment decisions for consideration beyond proactive time elements.

(1) Consideration for Officer Safety Issues Can Have an Important Impact on

Staffing Requirements.

As stated previously, the availability of sufficient proactive time to perform typical patrol officer duties and responsibilities is a primary driver in developing staffing levels.

Implied in these staffing levels is sufficient officer back-up on various call types to help address potential officer safety needs. There are important findings relative to officer



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations back-up, some of which have been referenced previously.

•

Based on one-on-one confidential interviews, patrol ride-alongs and the employee survey discussed in the final chapter, there is widespread concern regarding officer safety in the field. As shown in the survey with respect to the following questions, important officer safety concerns are raised.

Survey Response on Staff Required to Perform Safely and Effectively

We have the staff we need to perform safely and effectively during field incidents.

Sworn Sworn

Response All Staff Sworn Patrol Supervisors Management

Agree

Disagree

7.6%

89.4%

4.1%

94.6%

6.7%

93.3%

0.0%

100.0%

Neutral

Total %

3.0%

100.0%

1.4%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

•

I feel the availability of backup for officer safety is:

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

1.6%

14.8%

42.2%

41.4%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

16.7%

29.2%

54.2%

100.0%

•

Survey Response on Backup for Officer Safety

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

0.0%

73.3%

26.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Further, back-up availability declines, as well as response time, dependent upon the geographic sector. Staff expressed concerns about the large geography needing coverage in the east of the City, the winding roads, the limited number of officer deployed and the resulting potential impact on officer safety.

As it relates to the ten most frequent calls for service occurring in Chula Vista, as shown in the table below, the second-most frequent call for service, Domestic

Violence, benefits from a two-officer response given the potentially risky nature of the call. Given the relative frequency of this call overall, it can impact officer safety perceptions.




Ten Most Frequent Community Generated Calls for Service in Chula Vista (2011)



Domestic Violence


Traffic Collision


Disturbance - Noise


Petty Theft < $400

Disturbance - Party

Suspicious Person

4,058

3,469

3,052

2,444

2,444

2,171

2,055

1,976

1,823

1,524

Total/Percent of the CGCFS 25,016 38.9%

There is, however, some important opposing evidence with respect to officer

6.3%

5.4%

4.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.4%

3.2%

3.1%

2.8%

2.4%

•

• safety issues that include the following facts:

• The average community generated call for service has 1.86 units responding, well above the generally suggested practice of 1.50 units per call and some of the highest the MCG has seen in any law enforcement agency.

Chula Vista is a comparatively safe community when juxtaposed against many counterpart jurisdictions of its size. Compared to crime elsewhere in San Diego

County, crime in Chula Vista is down -32% from 2006-2010; -23% for 2008-2010; and -6% from 2009-2010. Of the reporting incorporated communities in San

Diego County, Chula Vista ranks very low at 16 th with a Violent Crime Rate ranking of 2.79 per 1,000 population compared to a 3.90 average. Finally, with respect to national cities with populations ranging from 150,000 to 300,000, of the 91 reporting localities these communities averaged 47 Part I offenses per

1,000 population compared to Chula Vista’s 25 Part I offenses per 1,000 population.

Despite concerns, actual officer back-up performance is very good as noted in an earlier table replicated below:

Priority

1

2

Calls for Service Avg. Patrol Units Sent by Sector by Priority (2011)

Sector 1

4.36

2.65

Sector 2

3.93

2.44

Sector 3

4.12

2.14

All Sectors

4.14

2.42

3

4

1.87

1.27

1.82

1.24

1.76

1.23

1.82

1.25

5 1.98 1.86 1.55 1.81

Variables such as those noted above can potentially impact both the perception



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations and actuality of officer safety and should be considered when staffing Patrol Operations.

In summary, beyond proactive time calculations, attempts should be made to develop an organization in which patrol staff feel safe in the field, and believe sufficient resources are available in the event of a major occurrence requiring a multiple unit police response. Overall, Chula Vista does not appear to truly suffer from officer-safety issues consistently when compared to most national agencies given the present operational methods of multi-unit patrol officer dispatch, the relative safety of the community as it relates to major felonious crimes, and the data which suggests that despite low proactive time availability officers find ways to back each other up regularly.

Nevertheless, given low proactive time levels, there is obviously and rightly a perception and underlying concern that a fellow officer might be too busy to assist their colleagues in need. As such, improving proactive time levels should help alleviate, though not eliminate, officer safety concerns.

(2) Policy Driven Response Times in the Chula Vista Community is Currently

Perceived as a Key Performance Objective for the CVPD.

A Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) was created to provide independent annual review of city compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance that was adopted in 1991. This ordinance sets forth threshold standards related to eleven public facilities and services, including: Air Quality, Drainage, Fire and

Emergency Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police, Schools, Sewer,

Traffic and Water. With respect to police operations, the GMOC has adopted specific response thresholds linked to CVPD’s current response time categories which generally fall under the following descriptions:

•

Priority 1 Calls

– Felony crime in-progress or injured party.


•

•

•

•

•



•


– Misdemeanor in—progress, Domestic Violence, burglary alarm, or possible injury.

Priority 3 Calls large party).

– Felony crime report (e.g. “cold” burglary), disturbances (e.g.



– Misdemeanor crime report.

– In-house administrative, impounds, etc.

The current GMOC response time threshold are based upon the point the police unit(s) is dispatched to arrival at scene. The existing performance metric expectations are:

Current CVPD Priority 1 and 2 Response Time Targets

Priority 1 Calls - 81% of Priority 1 CFS responded to within 7:00 minutes. Average response time for all Priority 1 calls should not exceed 5:30 minutes.

Priority 2 Calls - 57% of Priority 2 CFS responded to within 7:30 minutes. Average response time for all Priority 2 calls should not exceed 7:30 minutes.

The GMOC recently adopted new threshold response times based upon data

CVPD provided to the GMOC that indicated current thresholds needed to be adjusted.

•

•

The new thresholds which still need to be formally adopted by the City Council are:

Proposed CVPD Priority 1 and 2 Response Time Targets

Priority 1 Calls - Average response time for all Priority 1 calls should not exceed 6:00 minutes.

Priority 2 Calls - Average response time for all Priority 2 calls should not exceed 12:30 minutes.

These new thresholds would now include false alarm calls into the calculation, and would rely on an overall average rather than a certain number of calls falling within



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations a percentage range. Further, the calculation would represent the more traditional definition of “response time;” that is, from call receipt to unit arrival as opposed to unit dispatched to unit arrival.

Interestingly, while CVPD supervisors and managers are aware of the GMOC response time targets, not all CVPD staff are aware as reflected by the following employee survey response:

Survey Response on GMOC Response Time Objective

I am familiar with our GMOC response thresholds by call priority.

Sworn

Response

Agree

All Staff

73.6%

Sworn Patrol

72.5%

Supervisors

100.0%

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

12.4%

14.0%

100.0%

10.1%

17.4%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Given the apparent critical importance of this service level metric in Chula Vista, a near universal understanding is warranted among staff. With regard to how CVPD employees perceive their existing response times, the following is also abstracted from the survey discussed in this report’s final chapter:

Survey Response on Call for Service Response Time Performance

Response times to calls for service is:

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

0.0%

15.0%

42.5%

42.5%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

18.1%

40.3%

41.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

0.0%

53.3%

46.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

12.5%

25.0%

62.5%

100.0%

Overall, staff believe their response time outputs are generally “fair” to “poor,” with poorer ratings being given the higher the CVPD sworn rank. Finally, response time



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations was cited as an important improvement opportunity in the 2007 citizen survey.

Reiterating from a prior section in this report:

94 percent of residents reported being satisfied with the services of the CVPD. While this satisfaction rating has consistently been high (between 89% and 93%), this was the highest to date (of the multi-year surveys conducted). When residents noted some type of dissatisfaction, it was most often related to a need for improved public relations and the perception that there were not enough police officers and response times were too slow (emphasis added).

(2.1) Chula Vista Response Time Objectives Can Have a Dramatic Influence on

CVPD Operations and Staffing.

Response time reflects an important service level metric, and the MCG is a proponent of developing policy-driven response time targets. However, it is important to note that the response time metric’s overall relevance to crime apprehension and suppression is in question. There are various historical reports on response time that somewhat cloud its viability as a service level metric. These include:

Year

1977

1985

Study and Primary Findings

Kansas City Response Time Study found that a large proportion of the most serious (i.e., FBI Part I) crimes are not susceptible to the impact of rapid police response. Further, the study found that for the majority of calls that could be impacted by rapid response, the rapidity of response was most often linked to how quickly the complainant called rather than how quickly the police department responded. Said in another way, the study found that very low response times did nothing to deter crime and did little to result in the immediate apprehension of criminals.

Police Executive Research Forum’s Studies in San Diego, Peoria and

Rochester found that the use of sophisticated technology and deployment strategies to reduce response times were well intentioned but generally misguided – fast response times neither addressed crime effectively nor enhanced citizen satisfaction with the police department.

Despite such studies and their relatively aged results, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation still report response times as they are perceived important. This is reflected in a recent article by American Police Beat E-zine . Note the response times which can be compared to Chula Vista’s performance metrics:




According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta police were the slowest to answer high-priority emergency calls among police departments from seven similar-sized cities. The results were part of a survey of police response times. In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds.

The Denver Police Department posted a response time of 11 minutes flat. According to the Journal

Constitution story, police in Tucson, Ariz., responded, on average, in 10 minutes and 11 seconds.

Police in Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City posted average response times of less than 10 minutes.

In Nashville-Davidson County, police recorded average response times below 9 minutes.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution compared police departments responsible for similar-sized populations in comparable-sized areas. The cities compared had to have similar-sized police departments and similar definitions for high-priority calls.

The agencies studied also needed technology in place to track response times using the same methodology. Atlanta police Deputy Chief Pete Andresen defended the city’s response time while also saying the department is trying to speed up its arrival to high-priority emergency calls.

“Obviously, we want the times to go down,” Andresen said. Andresen cited several factors that slow officers down, such as traffic congestion and communication between officers and police dispatchers.

Asked t o elaborate, he said he was referring to “getting proper information” from dispatchers to officers.

Criminal justice professor Robbie Friedmann of Georgia State University said that Atlanta’s response time is “not unreasonable” when compared with the other cities.

He added that it takes longer than the public likely thinks to respond to 911 calls.

18

It is important to note that response time should be considered from the caller’s perspective; that is, the time from which the caller initiates the call to arrival of the unit on scene. Response time targets are also influenced by the dispatch agency, as the time between a call receipt and that call being dispatched is one variable in response time over which law enforcement agencies have little control unless, like CVPD, they are also operating the dispatch center. Several local law enforcement agencies have targeted response times for various priorities, yet the comprehensive formalization of

18 http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations such response time targets in Chula Vista, whereby failure to achieve outputs can potentially result in dramatic outcomes such as building permits being suspended, is unusual for a municipality.

Based on 2011 response time data, the following is noted for Chula Vista’s five priorities.

CVPD Unit Enroute to Arrival by Call Priority: Current GMOC Response Definition (2011 Data)

Final Priority

1

2

3

4

5

Unknown

# of Calls for Service

722

21,867

31,610

7,971

2,003

78

Average Enroute Time

(Min.)

4.5

10.7

18.2

18.9

27.7

5.4

% of Total Calls

1.1%

34.0%

49.2%

12.4%

3.1%

0.1%

TOTAL / AVERAGE 64,251 14.2 100%

As shown above, CVPD meets the average GMOC response objective for

Priority 1 calls but does not do so for the Priority 2 calls. This Priority 2 result is consistent historically as shown by the following abstract from the 2011 GMOC Annual

Report.

The Police Priority II Threshold Standard is noncompliant for the 13th year in a row. Last year’s report commended the Police Department for accomplishing significant improvements during the previous two review cycles. There was some slight deterioration this year, and prospects for the future appear worse, due to budgetary factors.

19

With respect to meeting the proposed response time objective, the following table provides further illustrative information to include response time data by geographic sector 20 .

19 2011 GMOC Annual Report, page 1.

20 Refer to page 12 for the CVPD Sector Map.




CVPD Call Received to Unit Arrival by Call Priority: Proposed GMOC Response Time Definition

(2011 Data)

Priority

1

2

Sector 1 (West) Sector 2 (South) Sector 3 (East)

4.7 6.0 7.0

12.4 14.3 16.8

All Sectors

5.8

14.5

3

4

5

32.1

42.7

27.0

36.1

48.6

25.6

36.7

45.6

22.5

34.9

46.4

26.6

AVERAGE MIN. 23.8 26.1 25.7 25.6

As shown above, under proposed and more common definition of response time targets of 6:00 minutes and 12:30 minutes for Priority 1 and 2, respectively, CVPD is only meeting the proposed objective for Priority 1 in Sectors 1 and 2. It should be noted that such response time targets are now influence by both queue-time in dispatch (the time the call is received to a police unit is sent en-route) as well as travel time (the time the call is dispatched to unit arrival). Thus, what was originally a metric solely for patrol is now a more common metric that involves a partnership of dispatch and patrol whereby queue time will influence performance outcomes.

CVPD Dispatch Queue Time by Top 3 Priorities (2011 Data)

Priority

1

2

Minutes

1.3

3.8

3 16.7

Perhaps one of the vital few issues for Chula Vista and CVPD to address is whether Chula Vista desires improved response times and wishes to ultimately make this performance objective a “desired” or “prescriptive” metric output. The final outcome of this policy decision can have a significant impact in operational and staffing decisions of CVPD. Generally speaking, response time is influenced by the following factors, of



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations which staffing levels and patrol operational protocols are the primary variables that

•

•

• impact response time performance.

• Technology Impacts – Available technology can impact response time performance both negatively and positively. Those agencies that do not have computer aided dispatch operations cannot process calls as rapidly.

Technologies such a preemptive traffic signals manipulate traffic signals in the path of an emergency vehicle, stopping conflicting traffic and allowing the emergency vehicle right-of-way, to help reduce response times and enhance traffic safety. Vehicle locator systems (AVL or VLS) link real-time patrol unit location allowing dispatch of the closest unit to a call for service. The issues associated with such technology are they have significant start-up expense and there is yet to be definitive study on the actual improvements to response time associated with these systems; present benefits are only anecdotal.

Dispatch Staffing, Call Prioritization and Operations – Overall response time is impacted by the “queue” time (from receipt of call to the dispatch of a field unit). Such queue time is impacted partially by dispatch staffing levels and the operations of dispatch as well as the availability of patrol units to respond in the field. As shown in a prior table, the average queue time for a Priority 1 call is 1.3 minutes. Best practices suggest that highest priority calls be dispatched within one minute, and while this only reflects an 18-second average differential, it is a performance variable that will impact overall response times. Further, the kind of dispatch prioritization system in use impacts response time performance. Chula

Vista does dispatch units based on a call urgency basis which is an important and effective prioritization method. Finally, unless well understaffed and/or poorly performing, dispatch staffing and operations do not have a significant impact on overall response time targets.

Geography, Topography, Infrastructure and Weather – Clearly the size of a jurisdiction, the topography in conjunction with the infrastructure (hilly with winding roads) and the weather have a potentially dramatic impact on response times. Chula Vista, at nearly 50 square miles of land, is a relatively large municipality from a geographic perspective, and given crime patterns, trends, and calls for service activity particularly in the East side, has large patrol sectors and fewer officers which impacts response time performance. Chula Vista does not typically suffer from consistently poor weather which can impact response time performance, but the East side of the City does possess characteristics of a large area with proportionally lower calls for service of generally lesser priority that can be challenging for any community attempting to meet aggressive response time targets.

Beat and Sector Design – With respect to beat and sector deployment and u ltimately beat design protocols, there is no “right” method with respect to configurations or the number of beats. For example, the City of Berkeley,




California (112,500 population, 18 square miles) has eighteen beats; which amounts to far more beats for a far smaller area than Chula Vista. Deploying staff resources based on a fixed number of beats regardless of time of day, day of week or community problems is not ideal, particularly given that modern computerized technologies can, as programming allows, modify beat structures quickly dependent upon need. For example, an agency may wish to add a night time foot beat in a downtown area only. Similarly, an agency may wish to reduce beats during the less active “graveyard shift.” Currently, CVPD has relatively

“balanced” sectors with respect to calls for service workload despite their different geographic sizes, street infrastructures and topography as shown below:

Community Generated Calls for Service by Sector (2011)

Sector 3

30%

Sector 1

34%

Sector 2

36%

•

-

-

The purpose of (re)constructing beats is to: 1) identify law enforcement service areas requiring specific needs; 2) to create service areas that attempt to balance workloads among all areas and/or 3) to create service areas that facilitate expeditious response times. With respect to the latter, re-designed beat systems can facilitate improved response times, but generally speaking, the largest response time improvements come from additional officers in more and smaller beats, thereby requiring additional staffing levels.

Increased Proactive Time – The largest positive impact on response time is the ability of law enforcement organization’s to have patrol resources available to respond when high priority calls occur. In effect, this is increasing the proactive time available for a patrol force. This can be accomplished in one of two ways:

Increased field staffing levels thereby increasing overall proactive time.

Modified patrol operational approaches that result in less reactive time for an officer and more proactive time for staff. These can include a variety of



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations modifications discussed in this report.

In sum, increasing proactive time availability through various methods is the linchpin in improving response time.

In conclusion, the MCG positively acknowledges the city of Chula Vista for establishing policy guidance with respect to response times. However, given the totality of evidence associated with response time and its ability to actually impact crime suppression or public safety to a great degree, it must be recognized that if the City emphasizes a response time metric it is doing so with the primary intent of satisfying the community’s perceptions with respect to rapid response time. As such, MCG believes that these response times should be considered desirable targets as opposed to specific directives that can ultimately have undesirable outcomes for the City to include unnecessarily increased policing costs, refused building permits, etc. As shown in this project’s Request for Proposal scope of work: “(Analyzing Patrol Operations) should be conducted with recommendations of proper staffing to meet response time threshold standards of 6 minutes (received to arrive) for Priority One calls for service, and 12:30 minutes (received to arrive) for Priority Two calls for service.” While a noteworthy goal, there are more important reasons to adjust staffing levels beyond response time targets.

* * *

This chapter identified various findings and conclusions with respect to CVPD

Patrol Operations resulting in a critical issue of insufficient proactive patrol time that impacts a wide variety of police services as well as community and internal perceptions of how CVPD operates. The following chapter addresses a variety of ways to impact proactive time within CVPD, ultimately resulting in enhanced police service delivery.




4. CVPD PATROL-RELATED STAFFING AND

OPERATIONAL REVISIONS

In an effort to enhance community service, improve proactive time, help minimize officer risk, and positively impact response time, the following chapter discusses various

Patrol Operations modifications that could positively impact service delivery. This chapter is intended to meet the Request for Proposal’s remaining Task 1 Scope of Work services.

1. ESTABLISHING A BASELINE FOR PROACTIVE TIME IMPACTS.

Based on the prior chapter’s proactive time calculations, it is clear revisions should be made to CVPD Patrol Operations. The first revision is exclusively related to patrol staffing revisions, holding all other operational features constant such as shifts schedules, methods of operations, etc.

The previous proactive time calculations were based on 93 fielded staff given these were the deployment schedules selected from late 2011. This excludes long-term injured, light-duty, or FMLA personnel. These variables can change relatively regularly dependent upon circumstances. Further, it should be remembered these staff included all core patrol personnel who are considered in minimum staffing requirements to include officers, agents, and K9 personnel (but no specialized Community Patrol

Division assignment staff). Barring no other changes, the following table shows the impact on proactive time by adding patrol field staff to Patrol Operations.




Baseline Model: Adding Staff to CVPD Existing Patrol Operations and Impact on Proactive Time.

Staffing Level Situation

Present Baseline

+1 Officer Scheduled 21 24/7

+2 Officers Scheduled 24/7




Total Patrol Line Staff

93

97

102

106

110

114

Overall Proactive Time

22%

26%

30%

33%

36%

38%

As shown by the data in the table 22 , barring any other type of operational change

CVPD would have to deploy 110 line staff acting as calls for service responders in

Patrol Operations to achieve what MCG considers minimum proactive time targets for reactive-based policing services and 114 staff to approach minimum proactive time targets that we believe are reasonable. In effect, CVPD would need to hire approximately twenty (20) additional officers under the assumption no other patrol changes are made. Obviously such a change would result in huge costs incurred to

Chula Vista. There are, however, a variety of operational modifications that can be considered that will limit the need for excessive additional staffing levels. These changes are provided in sequential order with respect to their probable impact on proactive time availability.

2. THE IMPACT OF REVISED SHIFT SCHEDULES ON PROACTIVE TIME AND

OTHER VARIABLES.

Various shift schedules can be implemented in a Department, from a 5-day, 8hour work week, to the four-day, 10-hour work week currently in place for patrol at

CVPD, to the 12hour deployment schedule. A 4/10 work schedule’s primary benefits are the additional days off provided to staff, the ability to have overlap coverage during

21 Scheduled officers still take vacation, sick, etc time. Scheduled officers do not reflect other commonly used terminology known as “fixed-post staffing.”

22 In the proactive time model due to rounding, number of officers increases by 5 from +1 to +2 officer scheduled columns unlike the rest of the table.



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations peak workloads, and the ability to have an additional staff contingent available during overlap times and days to undergo training, briefings or some other activity. There are disadvantages, however. All shift schedules which are not equally divisible into 24 hours of the day suffer from potential cost inefficiencies. By example, a 4/10 plan requires three shift deployments totaling 30 hours of paid time to cover a 24-hour timeframe. The staffing requirements for a 9-, 10- or 11-hour schedule increases the number of staff needed on duty, and where some effectiveness can be gained by the shift overlaps provided in these types of schedules, it is more costly and thus potentially less efficient than schedules equally divisible in a 24-hour time period. Despite the builtin cost inefficiencies, cities and departments often elect to keep a 10-hour work schedule for a variety of reasons. These positive reasons, beyond those provided above, include negotiated contract agreements, having an attractive work schedule to make it easier to recruit new staff, and also retention of existing personnel.

With respect to 12-hour shift programs, there are a huge variety of potential schedules that can be implemented, ranging from alternating time blocks off (3 days-on,

3 days-off), to “flipped” schedules—3 days on, 4 days off then 4 days on, 3 days off— to what is known as the Pitman schedule (2-on, 2-off, 3-on, 2-off, 2-on 3-off), to frequently rotating shifts (regular movement between Day and Night shift). Additionally, there are alternative shift schedules that combine both 10-hour day and 12-hour day patrol operations. Irrespective of the schedule selected, these “compressed work schedules” have an important history that is worth noting as it ultimately impacts both the operations and culture a of police agency.




(1) Compressed Work Schedules are Becoming More Prevalent in Law

Enforcement Agencies.

The public sector implementation of innovative work schedules in the 1970s-

1980s was prompted by a decade of falling revenues and declining federal aid. Among these experiments were flex-time, job-sharing, and compressed work schedules. The motive behind these experiments was the search for increased productivity, improved employee job satisfaction and morale, greater flexibility in scheduling employees for work, and reduced staff turnover. As the 1990s continued to be fiscally stressful for local governments, some law enforcement executives experimented with innovative work schedules. Compressed work weeks vary greatly and are usually found in manufacturing, computer operations, petroleum, insurance and hospital industries.

23

According to USlegal.com, the formal legal definition of a compressed work week is a work schedule condensing the standard full-time work week into fewer than five full days.

24 While compressed work weeks are more prevalent in private industries, their use is expanding significantly in the public sector, including public safety. In November

2005, the Police Foundation conducted a random phone survey of police agencies to determine the proportion of agencies having various shift schedules (e.g., 8, 10, 12 or some alternative hours in length) for its field patrol officers and the extent to which agencies still employed rotating shifts. The sample included 300 police agencies, all with 50 or more sworn officers. The following results were noted:

23 http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/20345579.html

24 http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compressed-work-week/




Distribution of Shift Length by Agency Size (% Distribution)

Number of

Sworn

Officers

50 – 100

101 – 200

201 +

8 Hours

(%)

41.2

41.5

32.5

9 Hours

(%)

2.0

2.4

-

10 Hours

(%)

22.4

32.9

35.0

11 Hours

(%)

0.0

1.2

5.0

12 Hours

(%)

28.5

19.5

15.0

Multiple

Schedules

(%)

6.1

2.4

12.

5

5.9 Total all

Agencies

40.1 1.7 27.2 1.0 24.0

In addition to the above data, the survey found that rotating shifts

—that is, regularly moving to a different shift start time (e.g., Days to Evenings) —are still employed to a significant extent. Of those who responded to the survey, 46% use a rotating shift. Rotating shifts were found to be slightly more common in smaller agencies

(52%) than mid-sized (41.5%) or larger agencies (30%).

25

While the 8-hour shift is the single-most prevalent schedule overall, it is interesting to note that varied compressed work schedules have now become the predominant scheduling alternative of choice. Furthermore, the twelve-hour shift schedule is nearly as common in all policing agencies as the ten-hour shift schedule

(24% compared to 27.2%) though a large majority of law enforcement organizations adopting the 12-hour shift schedule are smaller than 201 sworn personnel.

The CVPD has already embraced the compressed work schedule by implementing the 4-10 shift schedule. Consequently, other alternative compressed work schedules may be practical within the CVPD operating culture. As a result, exploring alternative 12-hour shift programs is feasible based on the advantages and disadvantages of this type of compressed schedule. There are important

25 http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/ShiftScheduleSurveyResults.pdf



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations considerations, however beyond just operational impacts and cost savings that include the following highlights.

(2) The 12-hour Shift Schedules Have Some Perceived Health Advantages for

Those Predisposed to the Benefits of a 12-hour Program.

There is a variety of literature with respect to the impact of extended work schedules on the physical and mental well-being of those employees subject to lengthier shifts. While a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this report, particular highlights are important to outline.

The 12-hour deployment schedule that is receiving increasing popularity with many law enforcement agencies is a scheduling option worth noting given some perceived health-related benefits. A recent study performed by Lincoln, Nebraska, including an officer survey of the Lincoln Police Department patrol regarding potential issues associated with its implementation of a 3/12 schedule, focused on many health

•

•

• related questions. The survey noted:

• 100% of the respondents felt they were able to perform all police functions on the

3/12 schedule.

87% disagreed that they had become so tired during a shift that they were unable to function normally or safely.

When asked about how rested they felt after returning from days off, 82% of officers said they were “very rested,” 9% percent felt “somewhat rested,” and an additional 9% found no difference from previous scheduling alternatives.

When queried about their ability to work additional hours beyond a 12-hour shift,

42% felt there was no difference, 40% said they were “somewhat less able” to work, and 18% were “significantly less able” to work overtime.

•

Positive mood and disposition changes had been noticed by the families of 77% of the respondents.

26

26 All results found in the August, 2008 article from The Police Chief magazine.




In effect, a very recent survey of a large metropolitan police department found overall positive physical as well as mental health benefits associated with implementing a 12-hour shift program. It should be noted, however, that the survey respondents were pre-disposed to a 12-hour schedule as they were voluntarily participating in a pilot study. Nevertheless, the results are statistically favorable with regard to this LPD program.

In addition to the Lincoln, Nebraska study, recent information collected by the

Police Officers Association of Michigan indicated varied positive aspects, including health benefits associated with implementation of 12-hour schedules. The following abstract is noted:

Initial concerns about implementing 12-hour shifts from police officers and police administrations were similar. Of mutual interest to officers and their supervisors was the fatigue factor and its impact on safety, decisionmaking and productivity. Both parties knew that eleventh hour arrests could add extra hours onto an already lengthy shift. Published evaluations of 12-hour shifts indicate that the vast majority of employees will report little or no fatigue after two to three months. Experts say that this corrective process will take place sooner if employees are more active in their time off. Sick leave has been reduced in many departments utilizing the 12-hour schedule. Although the number of hours reduced is usually minimal, one has to remember that when a police officer under the 12hour shift does use a sick day, it is at a rate 50% greater than that of the

8-hour shift. Figures reflect that while sick hours tend to drop a nominal amount, the number of incidents using sick leave decreased substantially more. Surveys indicate that sick leave increased when fast rotating shifts are scheduled. Although performance is a relative term, many initial tests did show double digit increases in the number of total arrests. Twelvehour shifts do result in 33% fewer shift changes, which in turn provides personnel with more patrol time and less wasted time in transition. With more patrol time, increased flexibility, and a greater feeling of satisfaction being reported by a vast majority of police officers, the increased production seems a likely result if there are no major fatigue factors. In their technical report to the Everett, Washington, Police Department,

Captain Charles Davis and James J. Tracy, Ph.D., stated that "objective measures of performance suggest no real differences in performance and



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations response times remained essentially the same." Studies show that accident rates tend to rise where overtime has increased significantly and the schedule is not accommodating. There have been reports published that do indicate a higher accident rate during the last four hours of a 12hour shift. However, this is found mostly in overtime studies and in studies of new schedules. This does not translate to personnel that have successfully adapted to a steady 12-hour shift and to its larger blocks of work and recovery. It is important to remember that the last four hours of a 12-hour schedule do not feel like four hours of overtime. A transportation study revealed that unexpected call-outs and stay-overs lead to fatigue, which in turn cause more accidents. The studies showed that the greater cause of unsafe fatigue is due to variation in start times rather than long hours of scheduled work. In 1987, Patrick Dean published An Evaluation of the 12-Hour Work Schedule for the Midland,

Texas Police Department and his research indicated that there was no increase in officer involved accidents after switching to 12-hour shifts.

Finally, all studies do show some decrease in energy in the last hours of shift work, whether those were 12, 10 or 8- hour schedules. Comparisons were made and test results verified from state police departments, county sheriff's departments, and local police departments that have published reports available to the public. There are certainly dozens of other internal department reports, tests, and evaluations conducted in Michigan police departments that can be made available to anyone in law enforcement considering 12-hour shifts.

27

(3) The 12-hour Shift Schedule Has Some Documented Health-related

Difficulties, Particularly as Work Extends Beyond Twelve Hours.

While many health-related benefits attributed to the 12-hour shift are touted by those staff prone to support this schedule, there are counter arguments and evidence with respect to the negative impacts of 12-hour or longer shifts. The following abstract is from the Texas Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics

Program .

Work fatigue has become so great a concern that the federal government now controls the amount of work hours for locomotive engineers, truckers, commercial pilots, and nuclear power plant operators, for example. Police officers, however, are not on this list (Vila, 2000). With lawsuits increasingly prevalent, it is important that police administrators

27 http://www.poam.net/main/journal/fresh-look-at-12-hour-shifts.html



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations provide pertinent information to their officers about coping with fatigue.

To illustrate, Vila, Morrison & Kenney (2002) cite three tragic incidents occurring in 1999 alone that were attributed to fatigue. In June 1999, an exhausted Margate, Florida officer ran a red light and crashed her patrol car into a sheriff’s van, seriously injuring a deputy, and in August 1999, a

Muskegon, Michigan officer who had been working nearly 24 hours straight was critically injured after crashing his cruiser into a tree while pursuing a fleeing motorist. In November 1999, a Cincinnati police officer fell asleep at the wheel while travelling home, ran off the road, and hit and killed a jogger. Two studies (Dawson & Reid, 1997; Williamson & Feyer,

2000) further concluded that approximately 17 to 19 hours of non-sleep can impair an individual’s performance, the same as having a .05% blood alcohol count (BAC), and remaining awake 24 consecutive hours is approximately the same as having a .10% BAC (legally intoxicated). With evidence that sleep deprivation has the same capability to impair an individual as alcohol, it is vital that departments acknowledge and implement policies that do not overload its officers. Surprisingly, according to Vila et al, (2002) officers who worked shifts consisting of fewer but longer workdays tended to be somewhat less fatigued than officers who worked the traditional 5-day, 8-hour schedule 28 .

Some very large law enforcement agencies disbanded the 12-hour shift schedule for health-related and other reasons. According to a representative from the Los

Angeles County Sheriff’s Office:

"Fatigue was always an issue," said Captain Buddy Goldman, commanding officer of the West Hollywood station for the Los Angeles

County Sheriff's Department, which dropped the 3/12 schedule there in

March, 2006. Goldman said the schedule made it hard for deputies to attend required training and make court appearances. Sometimes, deputies reported for duty exhausted from spending a day in court after a

12-hour shift. "I would have to send them to the bunk room for a couple of hours," he said. "That is not the best use of your deputies." 29

Perhaps some of the most comprehensive studies accomplished related to health impacts of extended shifts have been done in the medical fields, particularly

28 Telemaps Bulletin, Volume 15, No. 2, March/April 2008.

29 Los Angeles Times, “Response times are found to be longer and overtime costs are up, but the schedule is hugely popular with rank-andfile officers” 10/23/06



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations nursing, which has implemented the 12-hour program in many locales nationally over the past decades. Whereas the medical and law enforcement fields clearly carry different risks, the negative impacts associated with risk are clearly significant for both professions.

Early studies tended to focus on nurse satisfaction with the new 12-hour shift schedule, only minimally addressing the increased risk of errors.

More recent studies, however, have shown that the 12-hour shifts favored by many nurses and frequent overtime are associated with difficulties staying awake on duty, reduced sleep times, and nearly triple the risk of making an error.

Although the majority of hospital staff nurses (75 percent) now work 12hour shifts, some nurses report being scheduled to work for periods as long as 20 consecutive hours. Data collected on 11,387 shifts revealed that nurses left work at the end of their scheduled shift less than once every six shifts (15.7 percent), and worked on average 49 to 55 minutes extra each shift they worked. Working overtime, whether at the end of a regularly scheduled shift (even an 8-hour shift) or working more than 40 hours in a week, was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of making an error. The most significant elevations in the risk of making an error occurred when nurses worked 12.5 hours or longer; the risk was unaffected by whether the nurse was scheduled to work 12.5 hours or more, volunteered to work longer than scheduled, or was mandated to work overtime.

A little over two-thirds of the nurses participating in the Staff Nurse

Fatigue and Patient Safety Study reported struggling to stay awake on duty, and 20 percent reported actually falling asleep on duty. In fact, critical care nurses reported struggling to stay awake almost once every five shifts they worked. Not all of the difficulties remaining alert occurred at night (24:00 –06:00); 479 episodes of drowsiness (40 percent) occurred between 6 a.m. and midnight, and 40 episodes (23 percent) of actually falling asleep on duty were reported between 6 a.m. and midnight.

Nurses working 12.5 hours or longer were significantly more likely to report difficulties remaining alert than nurses working fewer hours per day, and they obtained on average 30 minutes less sleep.

30

30 US Department of Health and Human Services, “Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for

Nurses” Chapter 40, page 3-4.




In summary, the physical and mental health impacts of a 12-hour shift program vary, as demonstrated by the variety of evidence provided. Key factors that impact

•

• health variables include:

• Health difficulties associated with the 12-hour schedule are significantly exacerbated by law enforcement agencies that have implemented regularly rotating shifts

—that is, regularly moving to a different shift start time (e.g., Days to Evenings). CVPD does not subscribe to this practice.

Negative health impacts and the risks associated therewith tend to continue to increase beginning at 12.5 hours work time. Careful management of employees’ daily schedules are required to mitigate risk. In law enforcement this would include carefully managing court time, mandated overtime, higher-risk training time, etc.

Perceived health benefits are significantly more positive if staff are predisposed to wanting a 12-hour shift schedule. In the case of CVPD, numerous staff MCG spoke with in both ride-along and one-on-one interviews believed that Patrol

Operations staff would find an extended shift schedule unfavorable.

In conclusion, based on the totality of health-related data, the impact of the 12hour schedule on the long-term mental and physical well-being of the CVPD staff cannot be effectively predicted. Clearly, however, there would be negative health consequences in the short term while staff transitioned from the 4/10 shift schedule to a lengthier shift. Regardless of health impacts, operational impacts are clearly important irrespective of the compressed work schedule chosen. The following is noted with regard to two alternative work schedules.

(4) There is No 4/10 Shift Program that Offers Measurable Benefits Beyond the

Existing Split Shift 4/10 Program.

Repeating from a prior chapter, the following is the present work schedule for

CVPD Patrol Operations that results in the noted proactive time levels:




Five Shift Patrol Operations Deployment Schedule

Day Shift - Early

Day Shift - Late

Swing Shift - Early

Swing Shift - Late

Shift

Graveyard

Military Time

05:30 - 15:30

07:00 - 17:00

15:00 - 01:00

16:30 - 02:30

21:30 - 07:30

Days (8am – 4pm)

-4%

Proactive Time Modeling by CVPD Major Time Periods

Afternoon/Evening

(4pm-Midnight)

Nights (Midnight -

8am)

Total Avg. Proactive

Time

17% 54% 22%

The MCG reviewed a variety of alternative 4/10 shift models and was not able to measurably impact proactive time under various options. The existing split-shift concept is not believed to be effective as noted in our interviews and as evidenced by the following survey result:

The existing patrol shift schedule (split 4/10) leads to effective patrol services.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

33.8%

42.3%

23.8%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

39.2%

40.5%

20.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

6.7%

60.0%

33.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

12.5%

62.5%

25.0%

100.0%

Nevertheless, the split shift program does slightly benefit from proactive time over the following “best fit” 4/10 shift under non-split shift conditions and modified start times:

Day Shift

Swing Shift - Late

Graveyard

Shift

Three Shift Patrol Operations 4/10 Deployment Schedule

Military Time

08:00 - 18:00 (16/17 31 per team)

16:00 - 02:00 (17/18 per team)

01:00 – 11:00 (12/13 per team)

31 Overlap “barrel” day of Friday with larger team on weekend shift period.




Proactive Time Modeling by CVPD Major Time Periods – Revised 4/10 Model


6%


(4pm-Midnight)

11%


8am)

46%


Time

21%

The only benefit of the above schedule is the unpopular split-shift would be terminated, and larger patrol teams would be fielded at one time facilitating camaraderie.

In effect, modifying 4/10 work schedules will have negligible impact on proactive time calculations.

(2) A 12-Hour Shift Program Would Operate on a Four Platoon Program with

Shift Start/End Times at 0200 and a Two Platoon Power Shift at 0700 hours.

This Schedule would have a Dramatic Impact on Proactive Time.

Because of the variety of 12-hour shifts the project team has developed a 12-

•

• hour shift program within the following conceptual framework:

• Similar to present and alternative 4/10 shift schedules, the same number of patrol officers are scheduled throughout the week, regardless of day of week.

The proposed 12-hour schedule will actually take advantage of the additional

104 hours per annum available to each staff member per year. In 12-hour shift programs, staff are identified to work 2,184 hours per year as opposed to 2,080 hours per year for a typical employee. Different organizations compensate the additional 104 hours differently, ranging from providing compensatory time off

(thus not benefiting from additional work hours) to straight-time pay to other recompense approaches.

A significant advantage of a “common” 12-hour shift program is these additional

104 work hours that would equate to approximately five (5) additional staff position’s worth of time in a contingent of 93 patrol officers

32 and would thus benefit from the attendant increase of approximately 5% in proactive time.

There are other 12-hour based schedules where these 104 hours are not worked and as such do not benefit from the corresponding level of increases in proactive time.

32 93 x 104 hours = 9,672. 9,672/2,080 hours in a year = 4.65 equivalent staff positions.




It should be noted that from a purely operational standpoint, 12-hour schedules that have rotating days off

—whether 3/3 programs, 4/4 programs, the Pitman Schedule, etc —will always have the same field deployment profiles as one-half of the field resources are always scheduled for duty and one-half is off. It is those 12-hour schedules which have fixed days off (e.g., always Saturday/Sunday/Monday/Tuesday with monthly make-up days) and thus different resources deployed based upon the day of week that require special resource planning and balancing. Given that the present culture at the CVPD has the same level of patrol resources scheduled for deployment regardless of day (except barrel day), this concept will be carried forward in the development of optional 12-hour schedules. The following reflects details associated with the 12-hour scheduling alternative.

Three Shift Patrol Operations 12-hour Deployment Schedule 33

Day Shift

Graveyard Shift

Power Shift

Shift Military Time

14:00 – 02:00 (two 25-person teams)

02:00 – 14:00 (two 14-person teams )

07:00 – 19:00 (two 7-person teams)

33

92 personnel deployed instead of 93 as noted in the 4/10 program.




Total (Average) CVPD Officers FTEs Available Based on 12-hour Schedule

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100 16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Sun

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Mon

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

Tue

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Wed

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Thu

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Fri

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

24.8

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4

Sat

19.4

19.4

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

16.3

16.3

16.3

16.3




Proactive Time Levels – Based Upon CVPD 12-hour Schedule

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

Time/Day

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0900

1000

1100

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

33%

31%

38%

41%

46%

AVERAGE: 39%

OVERALL WEEKLY AVG:

Sun

10%

29%

-21%

34%

52%

70%

64%

67%

53%

36%

30%

27%

26%

23%

49%

54%

47%

44%

47%

23%

33%

36%

46%

55%

40%

6%

5%

7%

41%

30%

38%

39%

37%

Mon

64%

71%

56%

71%

77%

76%

55%

46%

22%

10%

13%

26%

27%

39%

36%

51%

38%

10%

7%

4%

34%

29%

36%

40%

37%

Wed

65%

73%

59%

70%

75%

69%

46%

38%

16%

11%

10%

27%

35%

37%

45%

56%

40%

8%

9%

3%

35%

29%

37%

30%

43%

Tue

65%

75%

65%

72%

76%

73%

51%

36%

24%

12%

10%

16%

15%

10%

43%

32%

33%

38%

37%

29%

37%

34%

41%

Thu

64%

75%

52%

66%

75%

69%

46%

43%

22%

15%

16%

51%

40%

37%

24%

21%

26%

12%

12%

32%

1%

9%

-4%

37%

27%

35%

32%

29%

Fri Sat

59%

65%

16%

37%

50% -10%

62%

68%

68%

52%

50%

23%

13%

7%

33%

56%

66%

62%

61%

40%

31%

25%

28%

26%

13%

-2%

-9%

31%

18%

21%

18%

49%

41%

40%

42%

44%

AVERAGE

49%

61%

36%

58%

68%

70%

54%

49%

29%

18%

16%

12%

13%

9%

41%

35%

38%

38%

39%

27%

30%

32%

31%

37%

Again, note that given the mathematical modeling associated with proactive time there are negative results in a few hour blocks. Nevertheless the change in proactive time levels is dramatic, increasing from 22% in the current 4/10 shift program to 37% in the proposed 3/12 program as further differentiated below:




Proactive Time Modeling by CVPD Major Time Periods – Proposed 3/12 Model


22%


(4pm-Midnight)

34%


8am)

56%


Time

37%

As shown in the table, proactive time levels during the Day remain insufficient under a deployment model with existing staff resources; however, addressing this daytime staffing problem is far less costly and difficult than addressing the previously noted staffing shortages related to the existing 4/10 shift schedule. At issue, however, are

• some important and fundamental questions that would need to be addressed.

•

Modifying a work schedule from the existing 4/10 to a 3/12 is a meet-and-confer issue and would need to be voted upon by the union.

It is not clear that such a shift schedule would be widely supported by CVPD staff.

• One of the benefits of the 12-hour program is the additional 104 work hours scheduled per year, per officer. Compensation for this additional work would need to be negotiated.

In summary, ch anging the present 4/10 shift program to a “common” 12-hour program would have the most dramatic impact on proactive time levels in CVPD.

Currently CVPD is in discussion with the Police Officers Association for a 12.5 hour work shift on weekends (Friday-Sunday) and a 10 hour shift on weekdays (Monday-

Thursday). Based on this “Hybrid Schedule” proactive time is only increased by approximately 2% weekly overall compared to the existing 4/10 split shift concept for the following primary reasons:

•

The 12.5 hour shift being proposed does not benefit from the additional 104 hours of work availability per year per position and relies on a typical 2,080 hour work year.




• Proactive time during the weekday period on a 4/10 plan averages 20% overall and still falls well below proactive time targets. Average weekly proactive time cannot be compensated for by the increased proactive time over the weekend of

32%.

Essentially proactive time from a “Hybrid Schedule” does not result in significant proactive time improvements. Alternately, however, adopting a 12.5 hour shift schedule for the entire seven days (as opposed to just three on the weekend) does result in some measurable proactive time improvements to approximately 33% average for the entire week.

3. THE IMPACT OF REVISED BACK-UP STRATEGY ON PROACTIVE TIME.

Calls for service in many other national communities average a 0.4 to 0.6 back-up rate with an overall average of a 0.5 back-up rate , meaning an average of 1.5 units responds to each call for service. CVPD has an average of 1.86 units responding to a call, resulting in a notably higher than benchmark back-up rate of 0.86 and one of the higher backup rate’s MCG has seen in any of our past client agencies. Further, as noted earlier the total number of patrol units sent by priority is very reasonable overall.

The fact that CVPD can deploy units such that this number of patrol staff is readily available on each call is not common, as many other agencies cannot approach such multi-unit responses.

Modifying present multi-unit dispatch protocols somewhat and closely monitoring back-up rates particularly for lower priority calls can have a dramatic impact on proactive time levels. Indeed, the following charts show such impact under two different back-up rate scenarios:




Impact on Proactive Time by Changing Officer Back-up Rate – 4/10 Shift

Back-up Rate

0.86 Current

0.6 High

Benchmark

0.5 Mid-

Benchmark

Days (8am –

4pm)

-4%

6%

10%


(4pm-Midnight)

17%

Nights (Midnight

- 8am)

54%

26%

29%

58%

60%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

22%

30%

33%

Impact on Proactive Time by Changing Officer Back-up Rate – 12-hour Shift

Back-up Rate

0.86 Current

0.6 High

Benchmark

0.5 Mid-

Benchmark

Days (8am –

4pm)

22%

29%

33%


(4pm-Midnight)

34%


- 8am)

56%

41%

43%

60%

62%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

37%

43%

46%

As shown above, proactive time notably increases under both the 4/10 and 12hour shift scenarios when back-up rate is somewhat reduced but maintained in the typical margins of officer safety. And while some timeframes remain an issue under different back-up rates, there is notable improvement in proactive time.

4. THE IMPACT OF REDUCED TIME SPENT REPORT WRITING.

Throughout the engagement one of the primary issues regularly brought to our attention was the present implementation of the CVPD’s NetRMS software. This product, distributed in many law enforcement agencies throughout the nation, has several features, one of which is the ability to create crime reports from various in-unit or in-station computers. While the Phase I report is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the NetRMS implementation, it is clearly part of an information technology issue as reflected in the following survey results further detailed in the final chapter of this report.




We have good software solutions to improve our performance.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

14.5%

76.3%

9.2%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

8.2%

83.6%

8.2%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

13.3%

80.0%

6.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Our patrol units have adequate technology to improve our effectiveness in the field.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

26.2%

60.3%

13.5%

100.0%

21.9%

67.1%

11.0%

100.0%

13.3%

73.3%

13.3%

100.0%

We have reliable computer hardware to improve our performance.

Sworn

62.5%

37.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

12.9%

78.8%

8.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

10.8%

86.5%

2.7%

100.0%

Supervisors

6.7%

73.3%

20.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0%

As shown above, there are widespread opinions regarding inadequate information technology solutions in place at CVPD. MCG’s survey narratives and interviews corroborate that NetRMS is one of the focal points of staff frustration and inefficiencies. While many complaints were registered, it is generally clear that the

NetRMS implementation needs further improvements in various areas as the product is presently creating hardships for end-users of NetRMS. Remaining issues are no longer strongly linked to a “learning curve” associated with officer unfamiliarity with new software. While MCG is a proponent of software solutions such as NetRMS to improve efficiency and effectiveness, there are many important factors that are involved in an expeditious and ultimately successful software implementation. Various issues surrounding NetRMS, and current efforts and recommended solutions to address these issues, will be discussed in Phase II of the report.




Of particular importance, the NetRMS has had an impact on patrol effectiveness, particularly proactive time. Report writing is calculated at over twice the norm

(averaging 60 minutes per report), and this time investment may very well be longer given officers’ stated experiences. Reducing report writing by the following increments impacts proactive time as shown below:

Impact on Proactive Time by Reducing Report Writing Time – 4/10 Shift

Report Writing

Time

1-hour current average

45 minute low

Benchmark

30 minute desired

Benchmark

Days (8am –

4pm)

-4%

1%

6%


(4pm-Midnight)


- 8am)

17%

21%

25%

54%

56%

58%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

22%

26%

30%

Impact on Proactive Time by Reducing Report Writing Time – 12-hour Shift

Report Writing

Time

1-hour current average

45 minute low

Benchmark

30 minute desired

Benchmark

Days (8am –

4pm)

22%

25%

29%


(4pm-Midnight)

34%

37%

40%


- 8am)

56%

58%

60%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

37%

40%

43%

As shown above, proactive time increases under both the 4/10 and 12-hour shift scenarios when report writing meets various benchmark standards. As such, addressing remaining NetRMS issues should be considered an important priority.

5. THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENTIAL POLICE AND VERIFIED RESPONSE

STRATEGIES ON PROACTIVE TIME.

Differential police response (DPR) is a management tool that extends the range of options for responding to requests for police service, intended to optimize the match between the service required and the response made. Rather than dispatching a patrol



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations unit to every call, on an as-available basis, police agencies that practice DPR allow for systematically delayed responses by patrol units to some types of calls and for “relief” responses, which do not involve a patrol unit, to other types of calls. This practice builds on research that has shown that much of the time an immediate response by patrol units does not improve the prospects for desirable outcomes: the apprehension of suspects, the prevention of injuries, the collection of evidence, or even the satisfaction of callers.

34

A component of DPR is verified response: requiring alarm companies to verify alarm legitimacy before calling the police. Under this approach, alarm monitoring companies must verify the legitimacy of alarms (except holdup, duress, and panic alarms) before calling the police. Verified response typically involves visual on-scene verification of a break-in. Verification may also be established by remote video surveillance. Audio intrusion detection technology is also available.

However, it is not nearly as effective as visual on-scene or video verification at this point.

As for in-person verification, it is usually conducted by private security personnel who travel to the location, assess the situation, and if necessary, contact police.

By requiring alarm monitoring companies to screen alarm activations, police response is reserved for true break-ins, actual attempts and holdup, duress, and panic alarms. Cities adopting verified response have found enormous decreases in the number of alarm calls, typically around 90 percent, which improves police response times to other types of calls.

35

(1) Verified Response Impact.

34 http://what-when-how.com/police-science/differential-police-response/

35 http://www.popcenter.org/problems/false_alarms/4




As shown by the table below, both burglary and robbery false alarms are within the top five calls taken at CVPD.



Domestic Violence


Traffic Collision


Disturbance - Noise


Petty Theft < $400

Disturbance - Party

4,058

3,469

3,052

2,444

2,444

2,171

2,055

1,976

1,823

Suspicious Person

Total/Percent of the CGCFS

1,524

25,016

2.4%

38.9%

Assuming implementation of verified response protocols consistent with

6.3%

5.4%

4.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.4%

3.2%

3.1%

2.8% reduction of 90% of these call types, the following reflects the impact on proactive time in implementing this measure:

Impact on Proactive Time from Alarm Verified Response – 4/10 Shift

Report Writing

Time

No Verified

Response

Verified Response

Days (8am –

4pm)

-4%

4%


(4pm-Midnight)


- 8am)

17%

23%

54%

59%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

22%

28%




Impact on Proactive Time from Alarm Verified Response – 12-hour Shift

Report Writing

Time

No Verified

Response

Verified Response

Days (8am –

4pm)

22%

28%


(4pm-Midnight)

34%

38%


- 8am)

56%

61%

Total Avg.

Proactive Time

37%

42%

Again, changes in operational practices can have an important impact on proactive time availability.

(2) Differential Police Response.

Various policing organizations implement differential police response options to include telephone reporting units, on-line reporting, and civilian community service officers (similar to what CVPD fielded in patrol years earlier). The table below shows an illustrative example of another law enforcement organizations telephone reporting unit list of call types.

Call Type

Telephone Report Taken for the Following

General Circumstances

Animal Bite

Assault – Misdemeanor

Attempted Stolen

Burglary

Criminal Trespass

Injury report for reporting party.

No visible injuries to victim.

Suspect apprehension unlikely.

“Cold” burglary, no apparent evidence, limited/no suspect description.


Destruction of Property Suspect apprehension unlikely.

Domestic Violence – Violation of Protection Order Unrelated to any injuries.

Embezzlement

Exposing – Sexual Misconduct

Extortion

Fraud



Varied.

Varied.

Gang Graffiti

Harassment

Litter

Missing Persons


Varied.


Varied.




Missing Property

Phone Harassment

Robbery

Thefts

Call Type

Telephone Report Taken for the Following

General Circumstances

Varied.

Varied.

“Cold” robbery, no apparent evidence, limited/no suspect’s description.

Depends on theft type and circumstances.

These call types can be used as a baseline for differential police response by sending civilian field units and/or staffing a telephone reporting unit to handle calls a similar nature. MCG’s review of 2011 call data by call type shows that approximately

11,700 additional call for service candidates are available for differential police response. Given the data, if even one-half of these were responded to by non-field patrol officers this can result in an additional estimated 5%-6% increase in proactive time for Patrol Operations officers. As such, recommendations are made in this report with respect to differential police response implementation.

6. TABLE OF IMPACTS OF VARIOUS STRATEGIES TO INCREASE

PROACTIVE TIME.

The following two tables demonstrate the various impacts of operational changes on proactive time, by the noted 4/10 and alternate 12-hour work schedule:

Impact on Proactive Time by Various Operational Changes

Operational Category

Baseline Proactive

4/10 Shift Schedule

22%

12-hour Shift Schedule

37%

Back-up Rate at 0.6

45 Minute Report Writing

Verified Alarm Response

Differential Police Response

+8%

+4%

+6%

+6%

+6%

+3%

+5%

+5%




Operational Changes – Overall Proactive Time if All Implemented, by Shift Type

Operational Days (8am – Afternoon/Evening Nights (Midnight Total Avg.

Changes 4pm) (4pm-Midnight) - 8am) Proactive Time

4/10 Shift

Schedule 25% 39% 70% 45%

12-hour Shift

Schedule 44% 51% 72% 56%

With the sole exception of the daytime period under a 4/10 shift program, proactive time shortcomings can be addressed by various operational changes. These are highlighted in the recommendations section.

6. PATROL OPERATIONS SUPERVISION IS APPROPRIATE WITH ONE

EXCEPTION.

Staff to supervision ratios for sergeants and line staff is currently appropriate and consistent with better practice of approximately 1:6 to 1:10 first line supervisors to line staff. The exception is patrol lieutenants. Currently four patrol lieutenants are assigned to Patrol Operations. 24/7 coverage requires five such positions. The MCG is a proponent of mid-management being available at a police station during all operational hours and believes this is consistent with best practice.

7. STAFFING CHANGES IN SPECIALIZED ASSIGNMENTS THAT AUGMENT

PATROL OPERATIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED; HOWEVER,

CERTAIN PRACTICES NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE

PHASE II REPORT.

With respect to Street Crimes, Traffic and School Resource Officer programs, the

MCG based on our review does not believe the staffing levels in these programs should currently increase or decrease largely for the following reasons:

• Traffic enforcement is a critical public safety endeavor and was noted as such in the 2007 citizen survey discussed in this report. Specialized traffic enforcement units are key to ensuring this public safety service is facilitated.




• The Street Crimes Unit represents an important geographic-based and problemoriented based policing operation. As such, its presence in the CVPD organizational structure is important.

• The School Resource Officer Program should continue as it is a visible and important community service presently fully funded by the School Districts.

While staffing changes are not recommended, operational revisions will be suggested and will be detailed in the Phase II report of this study.

8. K9 AND PROACTIVE PATROL CALCULATIONS.

While the CVPD K9 Units are included in minimum staffing requirements, thereby suggesting they are consistently available in the field to respond as needed, they are an important auxiliary unit and the way they operate in CVPD are not intended to be primary calls for service responders. While the project team is ambivalent with respect to such use of a K-9 Unit as a CFS responder, if they are not intended for such use due to department policy decisions they should ideally be abstracted from proactive patrol modeling. Given they are currently included in minimum staffing requirements they are a component of existing proactive time calculations. In the longer term, as resources become more available, if CVPD w ishes to use K9 units as a “back-up, specialized unit” then ultimately they should be abstracted from minimum patrol staffing requirements and proactive time calculations.

9. PHASE I REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS.

The following recommendations are made based on the analysis, findings and conclusions noted throughout this report.

Recommendation: As practical, strongly negotiate for a comprehensive 12-hour shift program inlieu of a 4/10 or “hybrid combination shift” to be implemented within Chula Vista Police Department Patrol Operations. As noted, this should be designed with three 12-hour shifts in six teams: two normal shifts and one Power




Shift. Implementation of a 12-hour program will have a dramatic impact on proactive time availability and the attendant benefits.

Recommendation: Maintain the existing Patrol Operations organizational structure and supervisory staffing with one exception: five (5) lieutenants should be assigned to Patrol Operations as Watch Commanders instead of the existing four positions. 24/7 mid-management coverage of police operations is consistent with best practice, particularly in departments of Chula Vista’s size.

Recommendation: If a 12-hour shift program cannot be negotiated, hire five (5) police officer positions at an estimated cost of $545K annually and assign the majority to cover the daytime period. This hiring level assumes most operational recommendations herein that impact proactive time will be implemented.

Recommendation: Hire five (5) Community Service Officer positions at an estimated annual cost of $310K and deploy them to Patrol Operations irrespective of the shift schedule implemented. These staff will be used to implement differential police response activities as discussed in this report and should impact proactive patrol by approximately +5% overall.

Recommendation: Implement verified response, discussed in this report, for residential and commercial alarms (non-panic) likely resulting in a 90% reduction in these call types and increasing overall proactive time by +5%.

Recommendation: Aggressively address remaining NetRMS issues. The CVPD should implement an extended NetRMS Users Group made up of several different sworn and non-sworn positions of various ranks to meet monthly to be held ac countable for addressing a NetRMS “punch list.” Reduction in report writing time by 25% can potentially increase overall proactive time by +5%.

Recommendation: Adopt dispatching protocols and patrol operational policies to overall reduce the total average patrol units sent to calls for service from 1.86 units to 1.60 units. This level of police response is not consistent with benchmarks for officer back-up rates and should be moderately lowered resulting in a positive impact to proactive time of approximately +7% overall.

Recommendation: CVPD and CMOG response times should be considered desirable targets as opposed to directives upon which to build patrol staffing levels. While an appealing customer service metric, police response time should not be a fundamental building block linked to patrol staff resources as such an approach can ultimately have undesirable outcomes for the City to include unnecessarily increased policing costs, refused building permits, etc.

Recommendation: CVPD and CMOG should adopt as a key performance objective a minimum of 38% overall proactive time annually for CVPD Patrol

Operations.




Recommendation: Implement an Automatic Vehicle Locator System for Patrol

Operations linked to dispatch real-time mapping thereby allowing Dispatch to deploy the closest patrol unit to a community generated call for service irrespective of sector/beat assignment. This should augment response times at an approximate installation cost of $100K for dispatch and $100K for patrol unit displays.

Recommendation: Purchase and install Corona Solutions (or equivalent) beat configuration and scheduling software which will allow near “real-time” beat redesign and shift scheduling adjustments based on various patrol workload metrics. Estimated software cost is $60,000. Beat re-design should have a marginal impact on officer safety and response time performance.

Recommendation: Establish a Dispatch Operations performance objective of an average of one minute call receipt to unit(s) dispatched for Priority 1 calls for service designed to improve current performance by approximately 18 seconds per call.

Recommendation: Strongly consider Patrol Operations and Dispatch operational revisions as discussed in this report. These efforts should have a measurable impact on response time performance.




5. SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

As part of the Chula Vista Police Department’s Phase I Study, The Matrix

Consulting Group conducted an employee survey of the Chula Vista Police

Department’s patrol and patrol-related operations to allow employees the opportunity to provide confidential input with regard to organizational, operational, and other issues in the agency.

1. AN ANONYMOUS SURVEY WAS CIRCULATED TO ALL EMPLOYEES.

An anonymous survey was circulated to Chula Vista Police Department employees to supplement individual interviews already conducted to provide any additional input as well as the ability to quantify employee perceptions regarding a number of organizational aspects. The confidential survey was collected and analyzed in April 2012. There were a total of 149 responses which reflects the large majority of those asked to complete the survey.

Respondents indicated their opinion concerning each statement in the survey, given the following options: “Poor”, “Fair”, “Good”, “Excellent” and “Strongly Agree”,

“Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree”. For discussion purposes in this document, the project team groups the “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses into one grouping when reporting emp loyee responses; the same is true for the “Strongly

Disagree” and “Disagree” responses, while the “Neutral” responses were considered separately. Open-ended question were also provided to respondents.

Respondents were asked a series of statements in the following categories:



Levels of Service to the Community
















Management / Administration

Organization, Staffing, and Deployment

Technologies, Equipment and Operations

Workloads

Programs and Services

Narrative Responses

The following tables show the breakdown of employee responses based on current department assignment, status, and position.

Department:

Field Patrol

Special Assignment

No Response

91

45

13

Status:

Sworn 104

Non-Sworn 45

Position:

Manager

Supervisor

Line Staff

No Response

8

25

114

2

The sections on the next pages summarize the results of the employee survey.

The MCG filtered the data to capture “All Staff” to include all respondents (i.e., patrol, management, supervisors). Sworn Patrol; Sworn Supervisors; and Sworn Management were also filtered for comparison.

2. LEVELS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY

Respondents were provided with statements concerning the level of service provided by their agency, the level of service provided by their counterpart agency, and interagency working relationships. The survey questions in this category and their responses are summarized in the table below:

1. The Police Department provides a high level of service to the city.

Sworn

Response All Staff Sworn Patrol Supervisors

Agree

Disagree

73.1%

19.4%

66.2%

26.8%

75.0%

25.0%

Neutral

Total %

7.5%

100.0%

7.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%




2. Compared to other police departments in the area, Chula Vista provides high levels of service.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

79.9%

9.7%

10.4%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

76.1%

14.1%

9.9%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

81.3%

6.3%

12.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%

3. City residents view our Department as a high priority.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

47.4%

38.3%

14.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

37.8%

48.6%

13.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

50.0%

43.8%

6.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

62.5%

12.5%

25.0%

100.0%

4. Compared to other police departments in the area, Chula Vista has a high amount of resources for police services.

Sworn Sworn

Management

37.5%

62.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

All Staff

32.8%

56.9%

10.2%

Sworn Patrol

21.6%

67.6%

10.8%

Supervisors

31.3%

56.3%

12.5%

Total %

Total % 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

5. Public Safety is a high priority for the City.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

36.0%

49.3%

14.7%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

23.0%

60.8%

16.2%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

18.8%

68.8%

12.5%

100.0%

6. I am familiar with our GMOC response thresholds by call priority.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

100.0%

All Staff

73.6%

12.4%

14.0%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

72.5%

10.1%

17.4%

Sworn

Supervisors

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

37.5%

62.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

The following points summarize the statistical information provided in the tables, above:

 A majority of respondents, agreed with question #1, “ The Police Department provides a high level of service to the city ,” with 73% of the overall respondents, 66% of sworn patrol, 75% of patrol supervisors and 88% of upper level management respondents agreeing with this statement.


•

•

•





•

A majority of respondents, agreed with question #2, “ Compared to other police departments in the area, Chula Vista provides high levels of service ,” with

80% of the overall respondents, 76% of sworn patrol, 81% of patrol supervisors and 88% of upper level management respondents agreeing with this statement.

Respondents had a mixed response to question #3, “

City residents view our

Department as a high priority ,” In terms of sworn patrol, supervisors and upper level management respondents, about 47% of patrol respondents disagreed and

38% agreed with the statement. The supervisor respondents were evenly split between agreeing and disagreeing with the statement, and upper level management mostly agreed (63%) and 37% were either neutral or disagreed.

Forty-seven percent of the overall respondents agreed with the statement.

A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #4, “ Compared to other police departments in the area, Chula Vista has a high amount of resources for police services

.” with 57% of the overall respondents, 68% of sworn patrol,

56% of patrol supervisors and 63% of upper level management respondents disagreeing with this statement.

Most respondents disagreed with question #5, “

Public Safety is a high priority for the City .” with 49% of the overall respondents, 61% of sworn patrol, 69% of patrol supervisors and 63% of upper level management respondents disagreeing with this statement.

Most respondents agreed with question #6, “ I am familiar with our GMOC response thresholds by call priority

,” with 74% of the overall respondents,

73% of sworn patrol, 100% of patrol supervisors and 100% of upper level management respondents agreeing with this statement.

In summary, the majority of respondents felt confident concerning the level of service their agency provides, especially when compared with other police agencies in close proximity. Responses pertaining citizen perspectives of the department were mixed. Respondents do not believe the department has comparable amounts of resources as other agencies. Additionally, those surveyed did not believe public safety was a high priority for the City. Many respondents were familiar with GMOC thresholds.




3. MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION

Respondents were asked a series of questions relating to the administration and management of the Chula Vista Police Department. The responses to the nine questions are summarized in the table, below:

7. We are supported well by our political representatives.

Response All Staff Sworn Patrol

Sworn

Supervisors

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

13.6%

76.5%

9.8%

100.0%

13.5%

77.0%

9.5%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

8. I am kept informed of important Departmental information.

Sworn

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

All Staff

52.6%

34.8%

12.6%

Sworn Patrol

47.3%

39.2%

13.5%

Supervisors

37.5%

56.3%

6.3%

Total % 100.0% 100.0%

9. My opinions are listened to in this Department.

100.0%


Sworn

Supervisors

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

38.6%

47.0%

14.4%

100.0%

31.5%

53.4%

15.1%

100.0%

10. My work performance expectations are made clear.

25.0%

68.8%

6.3%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

65.2%

18.5%

16.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

58.1%

23.0%

18.9%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

68.8%

18.8%

12.5%

100.0%

11. When internal problems arise, they are resolved quickly.

Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

34.1%

46.2%

19.7%

100.0%

29.2%

47.2%

23.6%

100.0%

25.0%

56.3%

18.8%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

12.5%

12.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

87.5%

0.0%

12.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

50.0%

37.5%

12.5%

100.0%




12. Staff are held accountable for their actions.


Sworn

Supervisors

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

45.9%

35.6%

18.5%

100.0%

45.9%

32.4%

21.6%

100.0%

13. Our police management provides effective leadership.

37.5%

37.5%

25.0%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

45.1%

43.6%

11.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

37.8%

52.7%

9.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

37.5%

62.5%

0.0%

100.0%

14. Our police management is visible and engaged in patrol operations.

Sworn


Sworn

Management

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

31.3%

68.8%

0.0%

100.0%

37.8%

50.0%

12.2%

100.0%

31.3%

68.8%

0.0%

100.0%

62.5%

37.5%

0.0%

100.0%

15. Our policies and procedures are up to date and consistently followed by staff.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

58.1%

25.7%

16.2%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

56.8%

27.0%

16.2%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

62.5%

25.0%

12.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

12.5%

12.5%

100.0%

The following points summarize the statistical information provided in the tables,

• above:

• A majority of respondents d isagreed with question #7, “ We are supported well by our political representatives .” Approximately 77% of all employees and

77% of patrol, 100% of supervisors, and 88% of upper level management agreed with this statement.

On the other hand, respondents held mixed beliefs regarding question #8, “

I am kept informed of important Departmental information

.” Overall, about 53% of the respondents agreed, with 35% agreeing, and 13% being neutral; however mixed reactions noticeably occurred among patrol, supervisors and upper level management. Patrol officers (47%) and upper level management (75%) of the respondents agreed and supervisors (57%) disagreed with the statement.


•

•

•

•

•

•



• Respondents also had a mixed views concerning question #9, “ My opinions are listened to in this Department

,” In terms of sworn patrol, supervisors and upper level management respondents, about 53% of patrol respondents disagreed,

69% of supervisors also disagreed with the statement, while 88% of upper level management respondents strongly agreed with the statement. Forty-seven percent of the entire sample disagreed with the statement (47%).

A majority of respondents agreed with question #10, “ My work performance expectations are made clear

.” Approximately 65% of all employees and 58% of patrol, 69% of supervisors, and 75% of upper level management agreed with this statement.

On the other hand, respondents had a mixed reaction to question #11, “

When internal problems arise, they are resolved quickly .” Overall, about 46% of the respondents disagreed, with 34% agreeing, and 20% being neutral; however mixed reactions noticeably occurred among patrol, supervisors and upper level management. Patrol officers 47% and upper level management 56% of the respondents disagreed and over 50% of supervisors agreed with the statement.

A majority of respondents agreed with question #12, “ Staff are held accountable for their actions .” Approximately 46% of all employees and 46% of patrol agreed, 38% split between agreeing/disagreeing among supervisors, and 88% of upper level management agreed with this statement.

Respondents held mixed responses to question #13, “ Our police management provides effective leadership

,” In terms of sworn patrol, supervisors and upper level management respondents, about 53% of patrol respondents disagreed,

63% supervisors disagreed, while 75% of the upper level management respondents agreeing with the statement. Overall, respondents were split with the statement (45% agreement/44% disagreement).

Respondents were als o mixed to question #14, “ Our police management is visible and engaged in patrol operations ,” In terms of sworn patrol, supervisors and upper level management respondents, about 50% of patrol respondents disagreed, 69% supervisors disagreed, while 63% of the upper level management respondents agreeing with the statement. Overall, respondents were split with this statement (69% disagreement v. 31% agreement).

A majority of respondents agreed with question #15, “

Our policies and procedures are up to date and consistently followed by staff .” Approximately

58% of all employees and 57% of patrol, 63% of supervisors, and 75% of upper level management agreed with this statement.

In summary, it can be seen that while a majority of respondents disagreed their agency receives support from political representatives, many of the respondents feel



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations inadequately informed concerning shared departmental information. Most of the patrol and supervisor respondents believe their opinion is not well received among their coworkers. However, respondents believe work expectations are implicit. When problems occur internally, supervisors and line staff feel issues are not quickly resolved, whereas upper management views were contradictory. Overall, all employees agree staff are held accountable. Patrol staff and supervisors disagree management provides effective leadership, while a majority of upper level management notice effective leadership occurring. Mixed reactions were noted concerning the visibility of management and their engagement in patrol operations. A majority of staff feel policies are up to date and consistently followed.

4. ORGANIZATION, STAFFING AND DEPLOYMENT

Respondents were asked to respond to questions related to organization, staffing and deployment efforts. The survey questions in this category and their responses are summarized below.

16. Patrol staff resources are adequate to meet the current law enforcement needs of the city.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

6.8%

89.4%

4.1%

91.9%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Neutral

Total %

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

3.8%

100.0%

All Staff

7.6%

89.4%

3.0%

100.0%

4.1%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

4.1%

94.6%

1.4%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

17. We have the staff we need to perform safely and effectively during field incidents.

Sworn

Supervisors

6.7%

93.3%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%




18. Present staffing levels have impacted our ability to meet service expectations.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

83.2%

13.7%

3.1%

100.0%

87.7%

11.0%

1.4%

100.0%

80.0%

13.3%

6.7%

100.0%

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%

19. Dispatch information provided to us on incidents is accurate and timely.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

50.0%

35.6%

14.4%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

45.9%

40.5%

13.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

40.0%

46.7%

13.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

20. The availability of non-sworn resources to perform our public safety job is appropriate.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

22.3%

62.3%

15.4%

100.0%

20.5%

65.8%

13.7%

100.0%

20.0%

53.3%

26.7%

100.0%

12.5%

75.0%

12.5%

100.0%

21. Our Beat and Sector deployment strategy is well balanced.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

15.5%

65.1%

19.4%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

9.6%

72.6%

17.8%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

20.0%

53.3%

26.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

28.6%

28.6%

42.9%

100.0%

22. The existing patrol shift schedule (split 4/10) leads to effective patrol services.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

33.8%

42.3%

23.8%

100.0%

39.2%

40.5%

20.3%

100.0%

6.7%

60.0%

33.3%

100.0%

23. K9 is usually available to assist primary patrol units in the field.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

60.0%

33.3%

6.7%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

47.3%

36.5%

16.2%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

60.0%

33.3%

6.7%

100.0%

12.5%

62.5%

25.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

100.0%




24. Other specialized patrol units (Traffic, Street Team) are readily available to assist patrol.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

31.1%

50.8%

18.2%

100.0%

29.7%

56.8%

13.5%

100.0%

6.7%

86.7%

6.7%

100.0%

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

100.0% Total %






An overwhelming majority of the respondents disagreed with question #16,

“

Patrol staff resources are adequate to meet the current law enforcement needs of the city.

” About 89% of all employees, 92% of patrol, 100% of supervisors and upper level management disagreed with the statement.

A vast majority of the respondents disagreed with question #17, “

We have the staff we need to perform safely and effectively during field incidents.

” About

89% of all employees, 95% of patrol, 93% of supervisors and 100% of upper level management did not agreed with the statement.

 A large pool of the respondents agreed with question #18, “

Present staffing levels have impacted our ability to meet service expectations.

” About 83% of all employees, 88% of patrol, 80% of supervisors and 88% of upper level management agreed with the statement.

 Respondents were also mixed to question #19, “ Dispatch information provided to us on incidents is accurate and timely

,” In terms of sworn patrol, supervisors and upper level management respondents, about 46% of patrol respondents agreed, 47% supervisors disagreed, while a 50% split occurred among upper level management respondents. Overall, 50% of respondents were in agreement with the statement, while 36% disagreed.



A majority of the respondents disagreed wi th question #20, “ The availability of non-sworn resources to perform our public safety job is appropriate.

” About

62% of all employees, 66% of patrol, 53% of supervisors and 75% of upper level management disagreed with the statement.



A majority of the res pondents also disagreed with question #21, “ Our Beat and

Sector deployment strategy is well balanced.

” About 65% of all employees,

73% of patrol, 53% of supervisors; however, 29% of upper level management agreed and 29% disagreed, while 43% were neutral with the statement.

 A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #22, “ The existing patrol shift schedule (split 4/10) leads to effective patrol services.

” About 42% of all



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations employees, 41% of patrol, 60% of supervisors and 63% of upper level management disagreed with the statement.

 A majority of the respondents agreed with question #23, “

K9 is usually available to assist primary patrol units in the field.

” About 60% of all employees, 47% of patrol, 60% of supervisors and 75% of upper level management agreed with the statement.



A majority of the respondents disagreed (with an exception of upper level management) with question #24, “

Other specialized patrol units (Traffic,

Street Team) are readily available to assist patrol.

” About 51% of all employees, 57% of patrol, 87% of supervisors disagreed and 75% of upper level management agreed with the statement.

In summary, employees feel that patrol resources and staffing levels are not safely meeting service expectations. Employees are mixed concerning the accuracy and timeliness of dispatch information. Police staff feels beats are poorly balanced and shift schedules are ineffective. However, respondents feel specialized units (such as K-

9’s) are readily available when called upon.

5. TECHNOLOGIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Respondents were asked to respond to questions related to the technologies, equipment, and operations and their effectiveness. The survey questions in this category and their responses are summarized in the table below:

25. Our Department does a good job of using technology to make our job easier.

Sworn Sworn

Response

Agree

All Staff

29.5%

Sworn Patrol

27.0%

Supervisors

20.0%

Management

37.5%

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

57.6%

12.9%

100.0%

62.2%

10.8%

100.0%

66.7%

13.3%

100.0%

26. We have good software solutions to improve our performance.

Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

14.5%

76.3%

9.2%

100.0%

8.2%

83.6%

8.2%

100.0%

13.3%

80.0%

6.7%

100.0%

50.0%

12.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0%




27. Our patrol units have adequate technology to improve our effectiveness in the field.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

26.2%

60.3%

13.5%

100.0%

21.9%

67.1%

11.0%

100.0%

13.3%

73.3%

13.3%

100.0%

28. The equipment we are assigned daily is of sufficient quantity and quality.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

30.0%

57.7%

12.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

28.4%

62.2%

9.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

13.3%

73.3%

13.3%

100.0%

29. We have reliable computer hardware to improve our performance.

Sworn


62.5%

37.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

62.5%

37.5%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

12.9%

78.8%

8.3%

100.0%

10.8%

86.5%

2.7%

100.0%

6.7%

73.3%

20.0%

100.0%

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0%

30. Improvement opportunities noted by staff are acted upon.

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

23.6%

53.5%

22.8%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

14.1%

66.2%

19.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

20.0%

46.7%

33.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

100.0%

31. We have sufficient supervisory & management positions within patrol to operate well.

Sworn Sworn


Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

46.9%

33.1%

20.0%

100.0%

56.2%

27.4%

16.4%

100.0%

32. Sergeants provide effective supervision for line staff.

6.7%

53.3%

40.0%

100.0%

12.5%

75.0%

12.5%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

63.3%

22.7%

14.1%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

58.9%

28.8%

12.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

86.7%

13.3%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

75.0%

12.5%

12.5%

100.0%




33. Promotions are conducted consistently and fairly in this Department.

Sworn


Sworn

Management

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

26.8%

49.6%

23.6%

100.0%

19.4%

59.7%

20.8%

100.0%

33.3%

53.3%

13.3%

100.0%

34. Selection to specialized assignments is conducted fairly and consistently.

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Response

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Total %

All Staff

31.0%

50.0%

19.0%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

25.0%

62.5%

12.5%

100.0%

35. Morale in patrol-based operations is high.

Sworn

Supervisors

40.0%

53.3%

6.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

87.5%

0.0%

0.0%

87.5%


Sworn

Supervisors

Sworn

Management

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

10.0%

80.0%

10.0%

100.0%

6.8%

89.2%

4.1%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

12.5%

87.5%

0.0%

100.0% Total %






A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #25, “ Our Department does a good job of using technology to make our job easier.

” About 58% of all employees, 62% of patrol, 67% of supervisors and 50% of upper level management disagreed with the statement.

A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #26, “

We have good software solutions to improve our performance.




A majority of the respondents disagreed (except upper level management) with question #27, “ Our patrol units have adequate technology to improve our effectiveness in the field.

” About 60% of all employees, 67% of patrol, 73% of supervisors disagreed, while 63% of upper level management agreed with the statement.



A majority of the respondents also disagreed (except upper level management) with question #28, “

The equipment we are assigned daily is of sufficient quantity and quality.

” About 58% of all employees, 62% of patrol, 73% of



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations supervisors disagreed, while 63% of upper level management agreed with the statement.

 A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #29, “

We have reliable computer hardware to improve our performance.




A majority of the respondents disagreed (except upper level management) with question #30, “

Improvement opportunities noted by staff are acted upon.

”

About 54% of all employees, 66% of patrol, 47% of supervisors disagreed, while upper level management were 50% in agreement, 25% disagreement, and 25% neutral with the statement.

 A majority of the respondents were mixed with question #31, “

We have sufficient supervisory and management positions within patrol to operate well.

” About 47% of all employees, 56% of patrol agreed while 53% of supervisors and 75% upper level management disagreed.

 A majority of the respondents agreed with question #32, “ Sergeants provide effective supervision for line staff.

” About 63% of all employees, 59% of patrol,

87% of supervisors and 75% of upper level management agreed.



A majority of the respondents also disagreed (except upper level management) with question #33, “ Promotions are conducted consistently and fairly in this

Department.

” About 50% of all employees, 60% of patrol, 53% of supervisors disagreed, while upper level management were 100% in agreement.

 A majority of the respondents were mixed with question #34, “ Selection to specialized assignments is conducted fairly and consistently.

” About 50% of all employees, 63% of patrol, 53% of supervisors disagreed and 88% of upper level management agreed.

 A majority of the respondents disagreed with question #35, “ based operations is high.

” About 80% of all employees, 89% of patrol, 100% of supervisors and 88% of upper level management disagreed.

Morale in patrol-

In summary, the majority of the overall respondents believe their agency falls short of ensuring technology is efficient enough to get the work completed in a timely manner. Employees had mixed reactions concerning special assignment and management/supervisor position selection processes. Respondents believed that



FINAL DRAFT Phase I Report of Patrol Operations promotions were not fairly conducted. Strong opinions among the surveyed suggest employee morale is low.

6. WORKLOADS

Respondents were asked to respond to one close-ended questions regarding their workload. The following table summarizes the survey questions in this category and their responses:

Response

About the right balance between time available and the amount of work.

All Staff

8.7%

Sworn Patrol

5.9%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

Sworn

Management

25.0%

I am always overloaded. I can never catch up.

22.0% 29.4% 13.3% 37.5%

I could handle more work without being overloaded.

Sometimes my workload is heavy, but most of the time I can keep up.

Total %

2.4%

66.9%

100.0%

2.9%

61.8%

100.0%

0.0%

86.7%

100.0%

0.0%

37.5%

100.0%


A majority of all respondents, patrol and supervisors believed that sometimes their workloads are heavy, yet manageable. Sixty-seven percent of all staff, 62% patrol, and 87% supervisors agreed.

Upper level management were mixed. Twenty-five percent feel their workloads are right, while 37.5% of respondents feel overloaded, and 37.5% believe workloads are heavy, yet doable.




7. PROGRAMS AND SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS

Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding the quality and effectiveness of programs and services provided by the Chula Vista Police Department.

The survey questions in the category and their responses are summarized in the table below:

37a. Response times to calls for service.

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

0.0%

15.0%

42.5%

42.5%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

18.1%

40.3%

41.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

0.0%

53.3%

46.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

12.5%

25.0%

62.5%

100.0%

37b. Availability of backup for officer safety.

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

1.6%

14.8%

42.2%

41.4%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

16.7%

29.2%

54.2%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

0.0%

73.3%

26.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

100.0%

37c. Department capabilities for selective enforcement of targeted problems.

Sworn Sworn

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

All Staff

3.3%

14.6%

38.2%

Sworn Patrol

1.4%

11.4%

32.9%

Supervisors

13.3%

0.0%

46.7%

Management

0.0%

25.0%

25.0%

Poor

Total %

43.9%

100.0%

54.3%

100.0%

37d. Amount of proactive time in the field.

40.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

0.8%

7.1%

22.2%

69.8%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

2.8%

15.3%

81.9%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

13.3%

26.7%

60.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

0.0%

37.5%

62.5%

100.0%




37e. The way officers deal with citizens.

Response All Staff

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

8.9%

65.9%

22.0%

3.3%

Total % 100.0%

37f. Follow-up investigations.

Sworn Patrol

15.3%

69.4%

13.9%

1.4%

100.0%

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

All Staff

1.6%

19.5%

47.2%

Sworn Patrol

1.4%

19.4%

37.5%

Poor

Total %

31.7%

100.0%

41.7%

100.0%

37g. Coordination between investigators and patrol.


Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

1.7%

24.8%

36.4%

37.2%

Total % 100.0%

37h. Level of traffic enforcement.

Sworn Patrol

2.8%

18.1%

33.3%

45.8%

100.0%

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

0.0%

13.3%

66.7%

20.0%

100.0%

37i. Quality of dispatch services.

All Staff

4.0%

41.3%

36.5%

18.3%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

5.6%

25.4%

39.4%

29.6%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

4.2%

41.7%

38.9%

15.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

66.7%

33.3%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

0.0%

73.3%

26.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

6.7%

53.3%

40.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

13.3%

66.7%

20.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

20.0%

46.7%

33.3%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

25.0%

37.5%

37.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

62.5%

0.0%

37.5%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

0.0%

37.5%

62.5%

100.0%




37j. Availability and content of training.


Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

0.0%

37.6%

40.0%

22.4%

Total % 100.0%

37k. Crime Analysis functions.

Sworn Patrol

0.0%

35.2%

38.0%

26.8%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

0.0%

26.7%

53.3%

20.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

37.5%

50.0%

12.5%

100.0%

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

All Staff

8.1%

43.9%

42.3%

Poor

Total %

5.7%

100.0%

37l. Specialized field units.

Sworn Patrol

8.3%

45.8%

38.9%

6.9%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

20.0%

26.7%

46.7%

6.7%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

25.0%

62.5%

12.5%

100.0%

Response

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total %

All Staff

3.3%

32.2%

41.3%

23.1%

100.0%

Sworn Patrol

2.9%

32.9%

34.3%

30.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Supervisors

6.7%

0.0%

73.3%

20.0%

100.0%

Sworn

Management

0.0%

50.0%

37.5%

12.5%

100.0%

As shown above, there was no clear majority in the quality or effectiveness among all staff or while viewed by position. There were consistent beliefs that Chula

Vista Police Department offers fair or good programs and services. The following points







 summarize the statistical information provided in the table, above:







Employees feel that response times are fair

Employees believe that availability of back up rates are fair

Employees believe that capabilities for selective enforcement are fair

Employees feel the amount of proactive time is poor

Employees generally feel good about the way they deal with citizens

Employees believe that CVPD does a fair job with follow up investigations

Employees believe that coordination between investigations and patrol is good












Employees generally feel that traffic enforcement levels are good



Employees feel the quality of dispatch is good

Employees believe that availability and content of training is good

Employees feel that crime analysis unit does a good job

Employees agreed that specialized field units are doing good work

8. NARRATIVE SURVEY RESPONSES.

Employees were asked two open-ended questions to provide comments and improvement suggestions. The open-ended survey questions and the most common themes within the responses are summarized in the preceding table:

Question

Three most important strengths of the

Department.

Three most important improvement opportunities

All Staff



Commitment to the citizens



Flexible and dedicated staff



Excellent training







Increase staffing levels

Technology and equipment

Overall morale of officers

Patrol



Hard working and dedicated personnel



Well trained staff



Officers are flexible and willing to change






Improve the equipment



Stronger leadership

Supervisor



Dedicated employees



Quality training



Great support from community

Management



Quality personnel



Flexible staff



Experienced and professional staff






Stronger leadership












Better interdepartmental coord. and communication

In summary, a majority of employees believe the greatest strengths of the department lay in their well-qualified and quality staff. They also invested in a shared commitment to the agency and the community they serve. However, officers and staff are optimistic that if improvements to equipment, management/leadership capabilities, and increased staffing levels were to occur, respondents could provide an even better service to the community.


II - Chula Vista Police Officers Association

Chula Vista Police Department Patrol Operations

Phase I Report

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

FINAL DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. CVPD COMMUNITY PATROL DIVISION OVERVIEW

3. CVPD PATROL OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

4. CVPD PATROL-RELATED STAFFING AND

OPERATIONAL REVISIONS

5. SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Related documents

Products

Support

II - Chula Vista Police Officers Association

Chula Vista Police Department Patrol Operations

Phase I Report

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

FINAL DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. CVPD COMMUNITY PATROL DIVISION OVERVIEW

3. CVPD PATROL OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

4. CVPD PATROL-RELATED STAFFING AND

OPERATIONAL REVISIONS

5. SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib