Montgomery County reviews police staffing study as overtime costs mount

Montgomery County officials and outside consultants presented findings on police staffing and overtime at a public safety work session on Nov. 3, 2025, as committee members pressed for clarity on the model’s assumptions and next steps.

Consultants from PFM, who conducted a workload-based staffing study of the county’s Investigative Services Bureau (ISB), told the committee that the county’s sworn vacancy rate rose from under 1% in 2020 to roughly 15% today, with patrol vacancies nearer 19%. A county staff presenter said that when light-duty and no-duty statuses are factored in, “only about 74% of patrol officers are actually available for service at any given time.” The presenters said maintaining response levels has relied heavily on overtime: “Last fiscal year, the Department exceeded its overtime budget by $11,000,000,” the staff presenter reported, and in FY26 the department had already spent about 44% of its budgeted overtime in the first quarter.

Seth Williams, who leads PFM’s law enforcement practice, summarized the ISB approach as an effort to convert detective work from an “art” into a data-driven model by combining the existing RMS data with confidential detective logbooks, a bureau-wide survey and roundtable interviews. Williams said investigative work lacks a CAD-equivalent time-tracking system and that the study’s methodology aimed to capture so-called “touch time” and ancillary duties that do not consistently appear in RMS data.

Ronald Serpass, a PFM senior adviser and retired police chief, noted that modern investigative workloads are growing because of new sources of digital evidence. He said the field increasingly requires more detectives and closer supervision to maintain clearance rates. “The detective function is now becoming that crucial piece that eats up 20% of your budget usually and 25 to 30% of your staff,” Serpass said.

Montgomery County patrol leaders described how they used Corona Deploy software and two years of CAD data to model patrol workload and to set an operational goal for proactive officer time. A department presenter said the analysis applies an operational target of roughly 21 minutes of available proactive time per officer-hour to inform staffing needs; presenters stressed that this operational goal is not a national standard but a locally chosen target the department can change as conditions or policy choices evolve.

Committee members repeatedly asked for clearer documentation of the study’s inputs and caveats, and for historic baselines so the council can compare current levels with prior staffing. Councilmember Mink asked for the empirical basis of the 21-minute target and whether it was a mean or an aspirational goal; presenters said the number reflects a mix of professional judgment, comparisons to other jurisdictions and choices the department can adjust as it reruns workload workflows.

The department’s patrol analysis outlines illustrative position needs and minimums by sector and district. In that illustrative case the report identified a set of additional positions that would narrow gaps in supervision and operational capacity; presenters described the need for one additional lieutenant, five sergeants, 49 master police officers, 20 patrol officers and 28 support officers as part of a staffing scenario, while stressing those counts depend on the operational goals adopted.

Recruitment and retention issues featured prominently. Staff said applications for recent classes rose — from 519 applicants in 2024 to 989 for the next class — but hiring yields remain low. Department personnel reported 482 applications so far for the July 2026 class and said the current conversion rate from application to academy seat has been well under 10% in the most recent cycles (a cited example yielded roughly a 3% acceptance rate for one recruiting cycle). Officials also flagged the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) as a near-term attrition risk: the department reported 66 officers currently in DROP, with 48 registering in 2025 versus seven in 2024.

Presenters and council members discussed how technology — drones, improved case-management tools and digital evidence processing — can both create more detective work (for example, greater amounts of phone downloads and video evidence) and also offer efficiencies if supported by robust case-management systems. Panelists urged improved RMS and a separate case-management solution to capture investigative time more consistently.

PFM said the ISB draft report is near final and expected to be completed in about 30 to 45 days; the committee agreed to collect follow-up requests from members and to return with a fuller presentation of the final report in late January or early February. The chair closed the session without any formal vote.

The committee asked staff to supplement the final report with clearer footnotes and assumptions, historical baselines for current metrics and a set of actionable follow-up items the council can consider for the short and medium term.