Budget For Little Rock Police Department

Budget For Little Rock Police Deartment1budget For Litt

The police department provides law enforcement services to the citizens of Little Rock, including preserving law and order, enforcing state laws and city ordinances, and protecting life and property. The department is headed by a police chief, whose office is currently vacant, and reports directly to the mayor. It has the largest budget allocation and full-time staff among city departments and boasts accreditation from the Commission on Law Enforcement Agencies.

The department's mission is to protect life and property through partnerships with the community characterized by mutual respect and understanding. It strives to deliver professional, unbiased, transparent, and consistent services, ensuring rapid response to all calls for service without discrimination. The department's overarching goal is to employ a combination of departmental, civic, and community resources to uphold law, order, and safety in accordance with constitutional principles.

Key objectives include answering incoming 9-1-1 calls within 20 seconds and responding to high-priority calls within 10 minutes—performance targets that have been largely achieved, with an average response time of 7.1 minutes and 90.3% of calls answered within 20 seconds over the past three years.

Budget Overview

For 2019, Little Rock's city budget increased allocations for the police department, funded primarily through the city's general fund. Revenue sources include reimbursements from the airport, which decreased by over 13% to $1.61 million, as well as police reports and false reports totaling approximately $2.45 million. The police department's total budget for 2019 is $78,785,071—funded by the general fund—which covers salaries, benefits, supplies, contractual services, and maintenance.

The budget entails significant expenditures: salaries and employee benefits amount to nearly $72 million, with increased staffing to fill vacant positions including 911 call takers; supplies and materials cost approximately $2.2 million; contractual services $2.3 million; and repairs and maintenance nearly $2.5 million. The rise in costs is attributable to salary increases, fuel, vehicle maintenance, and contractual commitments including a grant covering 15 police officers. Notably, vehicle fleet increases reflect staffing growth, with more units required for effective deployment.

The department's budget accounts for 37.41% of the city's general fund in 2019. It is allocated across various categories, with a 21.23% increase in pension costs for uniformed personnel. The department also budgets for new staff hires, including police officers and dispatchers, with a 2.5% salary increase for personnel. Funding sources for department infrastructure include the city's capital projects fund, derived from a 3/8-cent local sales tax, supporting initiatives like police equipment, radio systems, communication software, police stations, and fleet vehicles. For 2019, leasing 49 vehicles cost $256,800, while vehicle uplifts cost $135,600.

Capital expenditures for 2019 include $1.475 million for portable radios and $2.9 million for computer-aided dispatch systems—essential for modern law enforcement operations. The city maintains a debt policy avoiding the use of old debts to fund current expenses, emphasizing sustainable financing strategies.

Cost Analysis

Fixed Costs

Fixed costs remain unchanged regardless of activity levels. For the police department, these include vehicle leases and salaries. Vehicle lease costs of $256,800 are flat fees unaffected by staffing or workload changes. Salary costs, increased by 2.5%, are fixed at the outset of each fiscal year, unaffected by operational variability.

Step-fixed Costs

These costs stay constant at particular activity levels but can change once thresholds are crossed. The department’s staffing increases—such as hiring additional officers and call takers—represent step-fixed costs, which rise once predetermined workload levels are exceeded.

Variable Costs

Variable costs fluctuate directly with activity levels. For the police department, supplies and materials are the primary variable costs, with expenditures influenced by fuel prices, call volume, and other operational factors.

Budget Challenges

Developing a realistic budget for such a large department involves several challenges. Citizens of Little Rock harbor high expectations and demands for police services, often in the face of limited resources. Communicating the constraints effectively to the public is crucial but often lacking, which can lead to strained relations and unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, reliance on historical data and assumptions for budget estimates poses risks—unexpected changes in the economic environment, such as a downturn, can significantly deviate actual expenses from projections.

Economic downturns particularly impact revenue streams—reduced city income can strain the department’s capacity and necessitate budget cuts. The department's reliance on grants and temporary funding sources, like the one that covers additional officers until February, requires careful planning to avoid operational disruptions. Additionally, inflationary pressures on fuel, supplies, and maintenance costs add another layer of complexity to budget management.

Budget Recommendations

Effective budget management in the police department hinges on strategic personnel planning. Since personnel costs constitute over 70% of the budget, reducing staff should be a last resort, applied only after exhausting efficiency measures. Developing a multiyear staffing plan based on workload analyses enables proactive adjustments and prevents overstaffing or understaffing crises. Such planning ensures the department can adapt to fluctuating demands without unnecessary expenditure increases.

Eliminating pet projects constitutes another vital strategy. These projects—such as specialized training programs or advanced crime-fighting technology—should be evaluated against departmental priorities. Resources must be directed toward initiatives that directly contribute to core safety objectives, avoiding expenditures on less critical enhancements that do not align with strategic goals.

Adopting a conservative approach—under promising and over delivering—is essential when initiating new programs. Clear communication about achievable outcomes prevents setting unrealistic expectations. This cautious approach fosters public trust and optimizes resource utilization, ensuring funds are allocated to programs with tangible benefits.

Another recommendation involves leveraging technology to improve efficiency. For example, advanced data management and predictive policing tools can enable better resource allocation, potentially reducing operational costs over time. Moreover, community engagement initiatives should be integrated with crime prevention strategies to foster cooperation and resilience without additional substantial costs.

Finally, robust financial oversight and periodic evaluation of budget performance are crucial. Implementing metrics to measure response times, call handling efficiencies, and community satisfaction can inform ongoing adjustments to resource allocation, improving effectiveness while containing costs.

Conclusion

The police department's budget in Little Rock is a complex amalgamation of fixed, step-fixed, and variable costs, heavily influenced by personnel expenses and technological investments. While financial constraints pose challenges—exacerbated by economic fluctuations and high citizen expectations—strategic planning, technological integration, and prudent resource management can help maintain operational effectiveness. Emphasizing transparency, community engagement, and efficiency will be critical in balancing safety objectives with budget realities.

References

• City of Little Rock, Arkansas. (2019). Operating Budget for the Police Department.
• Measuring the Costs of Police Services. (1982). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
• Barry Reynolds. (2014). Leadership, Management, and Policing. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov
• Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Communities. Oxford University Press.
• Rojek, J., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Police and Community Crime Prevention Strategies. Journal of Quantitative Criminal Justice, 20(1), 57-87.
• Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Anderson Publishing.
• Crank, J. P. (2014). Ethical Decision Making in Police Work. Routledge.
• Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. Oxford University Press.
• Kenney, D. J., & Zingher, J. J. (2002). Police Operations: Theory and Practice. Pearson.
• Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-Led Policing. Routledge.