5 Gaps Most Agency Staffing Studies Miss

Every police, fire, or airport public safety agency eventually hits the same wall: officers are leaving for departments that pay more, applicants are choosing someone else, or a council member asks a simple question -- are we actually behind the market, or does it just feel that way? Most agencies answer that question with a study. Fewer agencies get a study that actually holds up. Here are five gaps that show up again and again in staffing and compensation studies, and what a defensible one does differently.

1. Comparing to posted pay ranges, not what people actually earn

Most comparisons stop at the posted pay plan -- minimum, midpoint, maximum on paper. But two agencies with an identical posted range can pay very differently once step progression, incentive pay, and time-in-rank are factored in. A study that only pulls posted ranges is comparing brochures, not paychecks. Pulling actual incumbent pay is more work -- it means going past the ordinance to budget documents, salary disclosures, and direct outreach -- but it's the only version of the comparison a council member can actually trust.

2. A peer group picked for convenience, not for who you actually compete with

It's tempting to build a peer group out of the agencies that are easiest to find data on, or the ones geographically closest. But your actual labor market competitors are defined by population served, call volume, budget size, and mission -- not just distance on a map. A defensible study documents why each agency is in the peer group and why others were excluded. That inclusion and exclusion logic is what survives a challenge in a budget hearing or a union negotiation.

3. A raw officers-per-1,000-residents ratio instead of a workload-based analysis

Officers-per-1,000-residents is an easy number to calculate and an easy one to misuse. Two agencies with identical ratios can have very different call volumes, response-time pressure, and deployment patterns. A workload-based analysis -- looking at calls for service, time spent per call, and shift-by-shift demand -- gets closer to the real question, which isn't 'how many people do we have' but 'are the right number of people in the right places at the right times.'

4. No fiscal impact estimate attached to each recommendation

A study that says 'you're behind market' without a cost-to-reach-market estimate leaves the hardest part of the job to whoever presents it next. Every recommendation should come with a phased cost estimate -- what it costs this year, and what it costs to fully close the gap -- so leadership can make a real decision instead of reacting to a headline number.

5. No board-ready presentation for the actual vote

The report can be airtight and still fail if nobody translates it for the room where the decision actually gets made. A study is only useful if it ends in a presentation built for the council, the authority board, or the governing body voting on it -- not just a document that sits in a binder after the consultant leaves.

A staffing study often surfaces a second gap along the way: whether the policy manual actually backs up the deployment decisions being defended. See The Three Words That Decide Whether Your Policy Holds Up.

If any of these gaps sound familiar, that's usually a sign it's worth a second look before your next budget cycle or union negotiation -- not necessarily a sign something was done wrong the first time. Schedule a free 20-minute consultation to talk through where your agency stands, and find out if a Compensation & Staffing Study is the right next step.