top of page
ApexOS-Advisory-logo
Book a discovery call

Sample Workforce Intelligence Study: Why Posted Pay Ranges Hide Where Officers Actually Sit

Writer: Kevin Stormer
Kevin Stormer
Oct 4
2 min read

SAMPLE · WORKFORCE INTELLIGENCE STUDY

A sample study built on fictional data, showing how ApexOS benchmarks real incumbent pay instead of posted ranges.

This is a sample built on fictional agencies and invented figures. It describes no real agency, place or organization.

The bottom line

On paper, the Sample Municipal Police Department pays at market: its posted midpoint is 0.8% above the peer median. In practice, its officers are paid 12.1% below the peer median, and the gap widens with every year of service. A study built on posted ranges would have reported no problem. Separately, patrol headcount is close to what the workload supports, but it is scheduled on the wrong hours.


Fictional sample chart: posted pay ranges versus actual officer pay at eight peer agencies; the sample department's average sits twelve percent below the peer median.

Key findings

1. “At market” on paper, below market in practice. The sample department ranks 5th of 9 on posted midpoint but 7th of 9 on actual average pay.

2. Officers sit low in the range. The average officer is 29% of the way up the posted range. The peer median is 57%.


Fictional sample chart: officer pay by years of service, sample department versus peer median.

3. Pay is compressed. Pay grows 20% from entry to 18+ years, versus 37% at the peer median. The gap runs from -5.1% at 0-2 years to -17.3% at 18+ years.

4. Right headcount, wrong hours. Authorized patrol strength averages 45 officers on duty across six blocks; the workload supports 48. Overnight and morning blocks carry more positions than the workload supports, while afternoon and evening blocks are short.


Fictional sample chart: authorized patrol staffing versus workload-supported staffing by four-hour block.

5. The cost to close the pay gap is quantifiable. In this sample, moving each service band to the peer median costs about $951K a year in base pay, before benefits and payroll load.


How the method works

  • Benchmark against incumbent pay, not posted ranges. A posted range shows what an agency could pay. Payroll shows what it does pay.

  • Peers are chosen by criteria the client signs off on before analysis: comparable population and sworn strength, the same or an adjacent labor market, a similar service level, and current pay data.

  • Staffing is tied to workload by time block, not to last year's authorized strength.


Limitations

All agencies, figures and findings are fictional and invented for demonstration. A real study states the source and as-of date of every data point, and recommendations are for the client's decision makers. No outcome is guaranteed.



Want this analysis for your agency?

Comments

bottom of page