Calculating Savings Associated with Reduction in CPD Ranks
According to a bad Sun Times article it seems like the CPD
is down by about 830 officers.
Access to information from the CPD is too restricted to ever get a reliable
number of how many officers the department is really down from their budgeted
number of 13,500 officers. Sources
within the department tell me the figure is probably around 1000
currently. Nevertheless, we will
use the Sun Times figure of 830 officers and other figures about retirements to
create an educated guess at the amount of money the city is saving from
reductions in police staffing.
While not being scientific, this should allow a general understanding about the savings to the city involved in the reductions in CPD staffing.
(see below for notes on the figures we used)*
Salary for a ten-year veteran patrol officer:
- Pay per year: $66-68,000
- 50-60% in benefits: $33-40,800
- Total cost per year: $99,000-108,000
Sun Times reports CPD is down 830 officers:
- Using low end costs: 830 officers x $99,000 per year = $82,170,000
- Using high end costs: 830 officers x $108,000 per year = $89,640,000
The Sun Times also reported that on Friday April 30th one hundred and thirty officers retired from the CPD and that about 1000 officers are expected to retire this year. Let’s take a crack at calculating the savings to the city from these retirements.
Salary for a 20-30 year veteran patrol officer:
- Pay per year: $80,000
- 50-60% in benefits: $40-48,000
- Total cost per year: $120,000-128,000
Savings from 130 retirements on Friday:
- Using low end costs: 130 retirements x $120,000 per year: $15,600,000
- Using High end costs: 130 retirements x $128,000 per year: $16,640,000
Savings from 1000 retirements expected in 2010:
- Using low end costs: 1000 retirements x $120,000 per year: $120,000,000
- Using High end costs: 1000 retirements x $128,000 per year: $128,000,000
Savings from approximate 2000 officers CPD will be down in 2011
(this takes into account the short fall in 2010 and the retirements expected in 2010)
Low-end costs: 1000 officers at 10-year veteran pay
- 1000 officers x $99,000 per year = $99,000,000
High-end costs: 1000 officers at 20-30 year veteran patrol officer pay
- 1000 officers x $128,000 per year = $128,000,000
Total savings in 2011 CPD budget for the estimated 2000 officer reductions:
- $99,000,000 + $128,000,000 = $227,000,000
The figures provided here are just for personnel costs and do not reflect associated costs for equipment and the like.
Wow, where is this money going? In 2008 the CPD spent $1,158,863,223 on personnel services (salaries, wages, etc.) according to their 2008 annual report. In 2011 the CPD is expected to spend approximately 20% less on this line item than they did just three years prior. Frequent readers know that I am not necessarily against reducing police staffing and expenditures if the money is going to be directed to proven crime reduction social programs like drug and mental health treatment. But this is Chicago, we reduce police staffing at the same time we consider closing mental health clinics. Maybe we can take this money and subsidize 10 factories offering thousands of living wage jobs in underserved communities throughout Chicago. Everyone can easily agree that living wage employment reduces crime and thus victimization. One item besides the pending reform of the Chicago Police Board that should be addressed by the City Council Committee on Police and Fire under its new chairman Aldermen Beale should be what the Daley administration is going to do with this huge savings. The administration should have to go on the record to explain how they plan on spending every cent.
* Because information from the CPD is so restricted there is no conceivable way without a protracted FOIA battle to determine exactly the rank and thus the earnings of those that retired on Friday. So we used general numbers we sourced for officers who have spent ten years in the department and have not been promoted above the rank of patrol officer and 20-30 year veterans who have not moved above the rank of patrol officer. Our calculations could be underestimating the savings if the make up of the officers retiring are above the rank of patrol officer. We published this blog based on the idea that our calculations would allow the public insight into the savings involved without being as definitive as we would like.
