U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME
OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS:
Considerations for Agencies Seeking to
Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Merrick B. Garland
Attorney General
Amy L. Solomon
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Karhlton F. Moore
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.gov
Bureau of Justice Assistance
bja.ojp.gov
March 2023
NCJ 306052
This report was prepared by Luke Bonkiewicz.
Luke Bonkiewicz is a researcher, fellow with
the 30x30 Initiative, and NIJ LEADS Scholar
with 15 years of law enforcement experience.
Cover Image: South_agency/iStock, Kena Betancur/Getty Images, John Roman Images/Shutterstock, kali9/iStock
i
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................ii
Potential Benefits .................................................................................................................. ii
Potential Drawbacks and Challenges to Implementation .................................................... ii
Recommendations for Implementation ............................................................................... iii
Introduction .............................................................................................. iv
Job Sharing—An Overview
.......................................................................1
Definition and Prevalence .....................................................................................................1
Motivations for Job Sharing .................................................................................................1
Potential Benefits ..................................................................................................................2
Potential Drawbacks .............................................................................................................3
Flexible Scheduling and Other Alternatives .........................................................................4
Potential Agency Units Suitable for Job Sharing .................................................................5
Recommendations for Implementation .....................................................6
Conclusion and Recommendations
............................................................9
References
...............................................................................................10
ii
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Executive Summary
Recruitment and retention are critical issues in law
enforcement, especially in light of the current staffing
crisis.
To improve recruitment and enhance retention,
agencies may consider implementing a type of
flexible scheduling called job sharing—a work
arrangement in which two people share the duties
of a single position while dividing the benefits. Job
sharing in law enforcement may benefit a range
of workers, including women, senior personnel
transitioning to retirement, parents or caregivers, and
employees experiencing personal or family issues.
Notably, if job sharing is not a feasible option for
law enforcement agencies, they can still implement
or enhance other flexible scheduling arrangements,
such as part-time positions or extended leave for
qualifying events.
Research on job sharing in many different industries
has identified both potential benefits and drawbacks.
Potential Benefits
Job sharing:
• Retains two people through a single salary and
thus two sets of knowledge, skills, and abilities.
• Improves employee work-life balance.
• Reduces stress and burnout for personnel,
including those who have suffered a traumatic
event.
• Supports greater productivity and lower
absenteeism.
• Mitigates talent loss and loss of organizational
investment caused by retirements and other
voluntary separations.
• Retains expertise, experience, leadership, and
mentorship.
• Retains employees with changing or unique family
situations, especially women.
• Supports a larger pool of auxiliary personnel in
case of emergencies, disasters, special events,
and unexpected staffing shortages.
• Increases agency personnel’s creativity, life
experience, and complementary non-law-
enforcement expertise.
• Provides a recruitment tool for those considering
(or resuming) a full-time law enforcement career.
• Provides unique perspective and insight on
agency policies and procedures.
Potential Drawbacks and
Challenges to Implementation
Job sharing:
• Requires training, equipping, and managing two
people for one position.
• Creates more employees to supervise, evaluate,
counsel, and mentor.
• May lead to stigmatization of job sharers and
reinforce negative stereotypes.
iii
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
• May be difficult—especially in smaller agencies—
to match two officers interested in sharing a single
role, or to have enough officers interested to
justify the program.
• May require a benefit reduction for job sharers,
such as decreased health insurance.
• May not be allowed according to local union
contracts.
• May not be allowed due to local and state
ordinances, especially those governing pensions
and health benefits.
There are more than 18,000 law enforcement
agencies in the United States, and there is no single
job-sharing program or process for implementing
flexible scheduling that can serve as a universal
model. Each jurisdiction has its own unique needs,
policies, logistical issues, ordinances, and labor
contracts. In light of this diversity across agencies,
we have identified several general recommendations
for agencies considering job-sharing programs and
policies.
Recommendations for
Implementation
• Conduct focus groups with and/or survey officers
to gauge interest in a job-sharing program and
positions.
• Identify and evaluate state legislation and local
ordinances that may affect the certification,
training, and retention of law enforcement
officers, especially those classified as volunteer,
auxiliary, or part time.
• Identify and evaluate state legislation and local
ordinances that may affect collective bargaining,
retirement plans and pensions, and employee
benefits.
• Evaluate the units and assignments that may be
suitable for job sharing.
• Develop specific policies for job-sharing positions,
including eligibility requirements and the
application process.
• Train employees and supervisors about job-
sharing benefits to the organization and to
employees to avoid marginalization of job-sharing
officers.
• Recruit, interview, and hire personnel specifically
for job-sharing positions.
• Conduct an ongoing evaluation of the job-sharing
program.
Conclusion: If implemented properly with respect
to local ordinances, labor contracts, and logistical
considerations, job sharing can improve both
recruitment and retention for police agencies, as
well as prolong officers’ careers and alleviate staffing
issues caused by retirements.
If job sharing is not feasible, law enforcement
agencies should still consider implementing other
types of flexible scheduling, such as expanding the
pool of part-time officers and assignments. Other
options include allowing officers to work from home
or creating an extended leave policy for those
serving as primary caregivers. An extended leave
policy could also accommodate individuals pursuing
or completing their education. These additional
options highlight the main benefit of flexible
scheduling—such arrangements may not only benefit
and attract a more diverse pool of employees but
also recruit and retain a larger number of employees
in general.
iv
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Introduction
Over the last decade, recruitment and retention
have rapidly become prominent issues in the
American law enforcement profession. Although
police applicant and personnel levels have ebbed
and flowed over the last half-century, several factors
have exacerbated the current staffing crisis: highly
publicized incidents of police misconduct (Weitzer,
2002; Axios, 2021), widespread protests against
such conduct (Mourtgos, Adams, and Nix, 2022),
changing public perceptions of police officers
(Gallup, 2020), the “Great Resignation” (Police
Executive Research Forum, 2021), the retirement
of Baby Boomer and Generation X police officers
(Hubbard, 2019), the expansion of remote work
and flexible scheduling employment options due to
COVID-19 (Forbes, 2022), and possible generational
shifts in attitudes toward traditional employment and
working arrangements (Barhate and Dirani, 2021).
The current recruiting crisis is multidimensional:
police agencies are faced with the dual challenges of
staffing their agencies while simultaneously ensuring
that those agencies are diverse and as representative
of the populations they serve as possible. Notably,
women compose approximately 51 percent of the
United States population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021)
but only 12 percent of law enforcement officers
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018). Because of
these factors, solutions are more complicated than
simply recruiting and retaining a greater number of
people. There must be a pronounced emphasis on
recruiting and retaining specific underrepresented
populations, particularly women.
There is likely no single solution, but rather a diverse
portfolio of recruitment strategies and agency
policies that may be used to attract and retain a
greater quantity and quality of employees, and
that present a greater appeal to underrepresented
groups.
This is an issue of diversity in the workplace, but
it is also an issue of public safety. A growing body
of research demonstrates the positive community
safety impact of women in policing. Studies have
found that compared to male officers, female officers
tend to use lower levels of force and generate fewer
incidents of excessive force (Schuck and Rabe-Hemp,
2005; Porter and Prenzler, 2017), generate fewer
complaints (Brandl, Stroshine, and Frank, 2001),
and utilize threats, physical restraint, and arrest less
frequently (Rabe-Hemp, 2008).
Notably, given this growing body of research
showing the unique value of women officers in
addressing many of the most critical issues in
policing today, especially with regard to use of
force and community complaints, improving the
representation and experiences of women in law
enforcement may likely ameliorate some recruitment
and retention issues while also contributing to
agency diversity and population.
One possible organizational strategy to attract more
women—and improve overall recruitment, retention,
and diversity—is a type of flexible scheduling called
job sharing (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). This
option is especially valuable to retain and recruit
female officers. Studies have found that a lack of
flexible scheduling may contribute to female attrition
(Davies, 2011), and most job-sharing participants
are mothers (Lewis, 2001; Branine, 2004). Several
professions in many different countries have
successfully implemented job sharing, including
nursing (Dubourg, Ahmling, and Bujas, 2006),
teaching (Williamson, Cooper, and Baird, 2015),
v
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
pharmacology (Rogers and Finks, 2009), library
services (Brocklebank and Whitehouse, 2003), and
banking (Mansor and Idris, 2015).
Furthermore, while there is currently a lack of
research on job sharing within law enforcement,
there is reason for optimism: studies in other
professions report greater productivity, lower
absenteeism, and reduced turnover rate among job
sharers (Spencer, 2017; Sacks et al., 2015).
1
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Job Sharing—
An Overview
Definition and Prevalence
Job sharing is a flexible work arrangement in which
two people share the responsibilities and duties of a
single position while dividing the salary, leave, and
other benefits (Curson, 1986; Spencer, 1997). There
are many ways in which the position can be divided,
but it generally entails a combination of employer
requirements (e.g., scheduling and job duties)
and employee needs (e.g., family leave, childcare,
sickness) (Branine, 2004).
Research has identified three main types of job
sharing (Daniels, 2011). The most common form
of job sharing involves two employees sharing the
duties and responsibilities of one job. A split job
share refers to an arrangement where employees
have different duties and responsibilities while
working toward a shared objective or goal. A hybrid
job share involves sharing some common duties and
responsibilities while dividing others.
Despite the variety of ways to implement job
sharing, few employers offer this option; only
about 10 to 20 percent of private employers
have a job-sharing option in their policy (Society
for Human Resource Management, 2018). There
is no estimate on how many of the 18,000 law
enforcement agencies in the United States practice
job sharing, but given the dearth of research on
flexible scheduling in American policing (as well as
the lack of available information on the internet), the
percentage is likely even smaller than in the private
sector.
Motivations for Job Sharing
Employers may institute job sharing for many
reasons, such as reorganizing workers and operations
to meet the needs of projects and clients. For
instance, if two or more part-time employees share
complementary skill sets or expertise, an employer
may use a job-sharing model to consolidate those
skills and abilities to meet a project deadline or
ensure staffing levels. Employers seeking a higher
rate of retention may also implement job sharing
to avoid losing employees who require flexible
schedules. In doing so, employers may acquire and
retain a broader employee pool with a wider range
of experience and expertise, as well as the ability
to fill shifts or assignments due to sickness or other
leave.
Job sharing is also an attractive option for
employees, and research has found that workers
from many different demographics and family
situations utilize job-sharing options (Daniels, 2011).
They do so most commonly after experiencing a
change in family status, such as the birth of a child,
in situations involving caregiving for other relatives,
or both. For example, members of Generation X
(those born between 1965 and 1980) are doubly
taxed as they care for their aging parents, who have
lengthier life expectancies, and also care for their
children (who may still reside with them and rely
on them for financial support) (Calhoun, 2020). The
outside demands fall especially hard on women, who
bear a disproportionate burden of housework and
emotional care as compared to men (Coltrane, 2000;
Erickson, 2011). Baby Boomers and older Generation
X workers also tend to utilize job sharing when
2
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
transitioning out of the workforce as a way to reduce
their workload and develop personal pursuits as they
approach retirement (Collison, 2005).
Potential Benefits
Studies on job sharing have documented numerous
possible benefits. However, it should be noted that
these benefits depend on several factors, including
the industry, the specific job-sharing program, and
the organization practicing this type of flexible
scheduling.
Research on job sharing across all occupations
demonstrates that participants experience a better
work-life balance (Crampton et al., 2003; Daniels,
2011), which is an emerging priority for younger
workers (Bannon, Ford, and Meltzer, 2011). Job
sharing may enhance that work-life balance, allowing
employees to care for their family, pursue outside
education or training, volunteer, or engage in other
hobbies (Hayman, 2014).
Furthermore, for officers grappling with stress and
burnout, job sharing may alleviate those issues while
allowing agencies to retain at least some of the
officer’s training, experience, and expertise. Similarly,
it may also alleviate stress for officers who have
experienced a traumatic event and require time and
space to heal but wish to remain on staff with the
agency.
Job sharing may also mitigate the loss of talent that
results when those from older generations exit the
workplace (Collison, 2005). The Baby Boomer and
Generation X labor pools contained a large volume
of workers, and now industries and professions
across the board are tasked with replacing that wave
of retirees from a shrinking labor pool. Job sharing
would allow officers of every rank and specialty to
depart in stages rather than abruptly, potentially
extending employees’ careers and mitigating the
retirement crisis. This transition phase would allow
agencies to staff more positions, further capitalize on
the experience and expertise of older officers, and
bridge gaps in leadership and mentorship caused
by retirements. Senior police officers with decades
of training and expertise could serve their agency
and the community by sharing the job of a patrol
officer, detective, or academy instructor, for example.
Although many retiring officers likely do want to fully
retire, there may be a sizable pool of retiring officers
who wish to, or would, remain if allowed to work two
or three days per week.
Job sharing may also increase retention among
women, the demographic most likely to participate
in flexible scheduling (Lewis, 2001; Branine, 2004).
Women perform a larger share of domestic work
and childcare (Smithson and Stokoe, 2005) and are
more likely than men to interrupt their careers to
care for a family member (Pew Research Center,
2013). If presented with an option that allowed them
to continue performing crucial domestic work and
childcare without interrupting their careers, more
women may choose to remain in the workforce.
Research on volunteer or reserve police officers
also sheds light on the potential benefits of job
sharing, as both approaches provide agencies
with a larger pool of officers to draw from, likely
with more diverse backgrounds and abilities.
Greenberg (1984) outlines numerous benefits of an
auxiliary police force, several of which may apply
to job-sharing arrangements in law enforcement.
For instance, job sharing would provide police
agencies with a larger pool of qualified personnel
in the event of emergencies, disasters, special
events, and unexpected staffing shortages. Police
agencies may be able to pursue crime prevention
and community policing initiatives with these
additional officers. Increasing the number of police
officers via job sharing may also increase an agency’s
creativity, life experience, and various types of
non-law-enforcement expertise (e.g., marketing,
data analysis, machinery). These benefits could
be especially useful in community outreach, social
media development, public information, recruitment,
training, and specialty units, such as those requiring
aircraft, watercraft, search and rescue, scuba, etc.
Furthermore, job sharing may attract people who
are thinking about pursuing (or resuming) a full-time
law enforcement career with important experience
and insight; there is evidence that many volunteer
officers wish to become full-time officers (Pepper,
2014).
3
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Lastly, agencies that utilize job sharing can also
benefit from a more diverse pool of perspectives
to shape agency policies and procedures. Officers
who job share may also offer a unique perspective
on policies and procedures; law enforcement is
an insular culture, and officers’ perceptions and
decisions are often shaped by their own experiences
(Paoline and Terrill, 2005). A job-sharing officer who
spends less time within the confines of a police
agency and more time in nonpolice settings (e.g.,
caring for family members, spending time with
friends, working for community organizations) may
offer a unique and valuable perspective to inform
agency policies and procedures.
Potential Drawbacks
Despite the variety of potential benefits, research
has also documented several possible drawbacks
or impediments to job sharing. For instance, even
volunteer officers are not a completely free source
of labor (Brudney, 1999), and agencies might balk
at the cost of training, equipping, and maintaining
two employees for one position. However, most are
one-time costs and are generally incurred up-front.
Moreover, these costs may well be dwarfed by the
cost of losing officers after a few years due to a lack
of job sharing or other flexible scheduling, which
would require the training of new officers.
It may also be difficult for agencies to establish
eligibility criteria for job sharing, and to clarify and
codify who and what situations qualify for job sharing
arrangements. Broadening eligibility for flexible
scheduling arrangements beyond the birth of a child
to caring for a relative or pursuing higher education
or training may lead to many, and for some agencies
too many, officers choosing to relinquish their full-
time status.
Job sharing may also place a heavier burden on
supervisors, who must supervise and evaluate two
employees instead of one for the same position. For
example, a sergeant who normally supervises 8 to
10 full-time officers may supervise 12 to 14 officers
under a job-sharing arrangement. The day-to-day
supervision aspects may not differ much (e.g.,
approving reports or an arrest), but the longer term
responsibilities may prove to be a heavier burden
(e.g., completing quarterly or annual evaluations,
scheduling training sessions). The “invisible work”
may also increase, such as mentoring, counseling,
and supporting additional employees. While the
increased monetary and supervisory costs of job
sharing may be burdensome, it is important to
contrast these expenses with the costs of losing
qualified officers in whom the agency has invested
significant resources. In addition, an agency could
extend job-sharing opportunities to supervisors,
thereby increasing the pool of managers and
mitigating the workload increase on supervisors.
There is also reason for concern that job sharers in
police agencies may be marginalized or stigmatized.
Because women participate in job sharing more
often than men (Lewis, 2001; Branine, 2004), this
may reinforce negative gender stereotypes and
perpetuate inequality within law enforcement.
Women may not seek or receive promotions and
specialized assignments; in turn, they may suffer
a continuing lack of respect from their peers. In
addition, research has found that part-time work
is associated with reduced access to higher status
roles, projects, and promotional opportunities for
those part-time employees (McDonald, Bradley and
Brown, 2009). Police leadership can mitigate the
potential marginalization of job sharers, however,
by explicitly supporting job-sharing positions,
recognizing the work and achievements of job-
sharing employees, and ensuring that selection and
the promotional process do not penalize job sharers.
Furthermore, where job sharing has occurred in law
enforcement, this stigmatization seems to generally
not be the case. Those who have participated in job
sharing in law enforcement have generally reported
feeling satisfied and comfortable with their roles in
the organization (Perrine, 2009). Lastly, it may be a
challenge to match two officers’ schedules to share
a shift and manage obstacles to schedule flexibility
(Hill, 2007).
However, the greatest challenge may be not in
costs, burdens to supervisors, or applicant interest,
but instead in determining whether such a program
is contractually feasible according to local union
4
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
agreements and ordinances. Many union contracts
govern bidding rights to shifts and days off, legal
representation and disciplinary processes, and
pension contributions and benefits.
Police agencies would have to address several
questions: Would police officers who participate
in job sharing be covered by the union contract? If
so, how would they select a work shift (according to
seniority or union contract) that they can share with
another officer? Are job sharers allowed to work
within specialized units or only in patrol units? Are
they entitled to the union’s legal representation and
benefits, such as health insurance? Other critical
questions relate to the issue of a union’s retirement
plan: Do job sharers contribute to the pension
and draw benefits? If job sharers are not currently
covered in a union’s pension, would the union
collectively bargain with their jurisdiction to obtain
that benefit? Adding job sharing to a union’s contract
may force the union to cede another benefit to the
town/city/county/state during negotiations, such as
pay increases, vacation days, or other compensation.
One way to address these potential obstacles is to
work with agency union(s) from the beginning; this
could include enlisting their help and support to
survey officers early on and conduct focus groups
about job sharing and other flexible scheduling
arrangements. Police administrators can partner
with union leadership to identify members’ concerns
about programs and collaboratively write job-sharing
policies that articulate eligible assignments and
schedules. Administrators can also work with elected
officials during contract negotiations; if a job-sharing
program is viewed as beneficial to officers, the
agency, the jurisdiction, and the public, then perhaps
job sharing can become part of the collective
bargaining contract without either side having to
compromise on any issues or demands.
Agencies must also consider the following: Do local
and state ordinances permit job sharing within law
enforcement agencies? Are job-sharing officers
governed by ordinances related to volunteer,
reserve, or full-time police officers? With regard to
pensions, would job sharers have to meet certain
stipulations and requirements to contribute to and
draw from pensions? Some states have rigid pension
requirements that would not permit part-time or job-
sharing positions in law enforcement, meaning these
ordinances would have to be amended by state
legislatures and city councils. In general, agencies
that are considering job-sharing programs must
carefully scan the legislative landscape for applicable
laws, ordinances, and contracts. Yet union contracts
and labor laws are not insurmountable obstacles–
mapping the legislative and contractual terrain
is simply a prerequisite for identifying a possible
path to job sharing. Police administrators, union
leaders, and elected officials can work to create new
legislation or amend existing pension and contract
laws to accommodate flexible scheduling.
Flexible Scheduling and Other
Alternatives
Where job sharing may not be feasible, police
agencies can still implement other types of flexible
scheduling. One option may involve expanding the
corps of part-time officers. While some agencies
maintain volunteer or reserve police officer
programs, most do not utilize an auxiliary unit. In
many communities, there may be an untapped
population of individuals who want to protect and
serve their community but cannot make a full-time
commitment. Simultaneously, many police agencies
are below their authorized strength and cannot fill
those positions. Why not designate some of those
positions as less than full time and attempt to
regain authorized strength by recruiting individuals
interested in serving only part time? Currently, about
20 percent of police officers in the United States
are volunteers (Dobrin and Wolf, 2016), and studies
find that both agencies and individuals benefit from
auxiliary police service (van Steden and Mehlbaum,
2019; Wolf and Bryer, 2020). Part-time police service
may delay retirements, recruit a wide group of
applicants, and help agencies fulfill minimum staffing
requirements.
A second flexible scheduling option would be to
allow officers to work from home while recovering
from pregnancy, illness or injury, or other types of
circumstances. These officers could take belated,
5
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
nonemergency calls for service; conduct follow-up
over the phone (such as interviewing witnesses or
victims); and even investigate crimes (e.g., frauds,
forgeries, and other crimes already investigated
by detectives largely from behind a desk). The
COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that workers
from a variety of different industries can effectively
perform their duties remotely. Police officers may
likewise be able to handle certain types of calls for
service and investigation remotely, although they
may need appropriate technology and training
to comply with state laws and agency policies
(Gallegos, 2020).
Finally, agencies may consider instituting a long-term
leave policy that allows employees who meet certain
criteria to return to the police agency after 12 to 24
months. Although employees would not be paid,
they could care for newborn or adopted children (or
other relatives) without interrupting their career path.
They could put their careers on hiatus while serving
as primary caregivers and decide at the end of the
term whether they want to return.
Such long-term leave policies could also potentially
accommodate officers who are pursuing or
completing higher education or other law
enforcement-related training. However, agencies
would have to clearly define the eligibility criteria
to avoid misuse of the policy to pursue training
that is not related to law enforcement or other
employment opportunities. For example, the
policy might articulate that eligible employees
include those serving as a primary caregiver for an
immediate family member or who are pursuing law
enforcement-related education or training. Extended
leave policies would also outline stipulations
concerning pay, leave accrual, seniority accrual,
retirement contributions, and reentry procedures
(perhaps similar to government employees returning
after extended military leave).
Potential Agency Units Suitable
for Job Sharing
Over the last few decades, recruiting obstacles have
led to staffing deficiencies, with 25 percent of police
agencies forced to reduce or eliminate services due
to personnel shortages (International Association of
Chiefs of Police, 2020). Because patrol composes
the largest percentage of a police agency’s staffing,
a job-sharing program may need to remedy any
staffing deficiencies in the area of patrol. On the
other hand, if job sharing allows an agency to retain
two or more employees who would otherwise resign
their full-time commission, job sharing may actually
increase staffing in patrol and other units.
There are also other units that may be suitable
for job-sharing arrangements, including but not
limited to community policing and outreach, public
information, data and crime analysis, crime scene
investigators, traffic and collision investigations, and
criminal investigations. Each of these units could
benefit from diversity in insight, expertise, and
experience that job-sharing officers would bring. For
instance, an employee might bring experience in
the nonprofit sector to a community outreach unit,
crisis communications skills to a public information
unit, research abilities to a data analysis unit, or a
biology or forensic science degree to a crime scene
investigation team. Moreover, these units may have
more regular schedules (as opposed to shift work),
making them more amenable to two officers sharing
job duties and a shift.
6
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Recommendations for
Implementation
There are over 18,000 law enforcement agencies in
the United States, each abiding by its own respective
policies, union contracts, local ordinances, and state
legislatures. In turn, every police agency likely has
unique circumstances and challenges that must
be evaluated and addressed before instituting any
type of flexible scheduling. Based on the extant
research on job sharing and its application to law
enforcement, the following recommendations for
police agencies involve a series of steps that may
aid in implementing many different types of flexible
scheduling programs, not only job sharing.
1. Survey officers and/or conduct focus groups
to determine the level of interest in flexible
scheduling programs and positions.
Depending on the agency and jurisdiction, there
may be logistical challenges to designing and
implementing flexible scheduling positions and
programs. Before deciding how to address those
challenges, it is recommended that agencies first
survey their officers (and possibly community
members and potential recruits) and/or conduct
focus groups to determine the level of interest in
alternative scheduling.
2. Identify state legislation and local ordinances
that may affect the certification, training,
and retention of law enforcement officers,
especially those classified as volunteer,
auxiliary, or part time.
The second step in determining the feasibility
of a flexible scheduling program is to assess
whether such a program is compatible with state
and local laws. In addition, police agencies must
evaluate whether they can meet the requirements
of these laws, especially those related to training
and education. For example, depending on the
program, some officers may not reach the number
of hours worked or training hours to retain their
law enforcement certification. Agencies must first
determine whether any proposed flexible scheduling
arrangement will comply with local laws.
3. Identify state legislation and local ordinances
that may affect collective bargaining,
retirement plans and pensions, and employee
benefits.
Next, law enforcement agencies must identify how
job-sharing or part-time positions may be affected by
collective bargaining and the benefits guaranteed by
labor contracts. In some jurisdictions, pensions are
governed by state statutes with stringent eligibility
criteria. If a program does not meet legislative or
labor contract criteria, then participants may not
receive pension benefits, legal representation, or
other benefits enjoyed by full-time police officers.
4. Evaluate what units and assignments may be
suitable for flexible scheduling.
Every police agency has unique strengths and
faces unique challenges, and this is especially true
concerning personnel issues. Therefore, the question
of which units are most suitable and would benefit
most from flexible scheduling must be answered
by each agency independently. For example, job
sharing may allow one agency to enhance its public
information office, while another agency may use
part-time employees to staff its community services
unit. Some agencies may use flexible scheduling
to stem the tide of retirements from higher ranking
officers and retain knowledge and leadership within
7
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
the agency. Other agencies may use job-sharing or
part-time programs to cover projected personnel
shortages in their patrol units due to military leave,
family leave, medical leave, or other issues. The
critical point is that agencies must assess where
flexible scheduling could be most feasible and
beneficial.
5. Develop specific policies for flexible scheduling
positions, including eligibility requirements and
application processes.
Assuming that local ordinances and labor contracts
permit flexible scheduling and that agencies can
identify suitable units, police agencies must develop
program-specific policies. These policies should
address numerous issues: eligibility requirements,
specific job assignments and availability, the
application and selection process, the process
for leaving an assignment, compensation rates
(including overtime and other differential rates),
employee benefits (including but not limited to
retirement, disability, life insurance, holidays,
and leave accrual), employee rights (such as
grievance procedures), criteria for terminating a job
assignment, and commitment to retaining a sufficient
number of flexible scheduling positions.
6. Train employees and supervisors about the
benefits to the organization and to employees
to avoid marginalization of job-sharing or part-
time officers.
As noted, flexible scheduling in law enforcement
has the potential to stigmatize and/or marginalize
participants, depending on the culture of the police
agency. Such a concern is especially notable for
women, who are the most common participants
in job-sharing programs (Lewis, 2001; Branine,
2004) and may already experience isolation, sexual
violence, and marginalization in law enforcement
(Sands et al., 2022).
To combat such stigma and the compounding
marginalization, it is critical for police agencies
to educate their personnel of all ranks about the
potential benefits of flexible scheduling, including
reduced stress and burnout, mitigation of talent
loss, longer retention of expertise and leadership,
retention of larger auxiliary pools of officers in
case of critical incidents, and recruitment of those
considering a full-time career, among many others
noted in this report. Explaining the benefits may
normalize flexible scheduling and reduce the
chances that participants will experience stigma and
marginalization.
7. Recruit, interview, and hire specifically for
flexible scheduling positions.
Agencies should specifically recruit and hire for
flexible scheduling positions, as well as include
job sharing as part of the agency’s recruitment
and retention plan. Police agencies may establish
and even maintain job-sharing assignments, but
these programs may be underutilized if agencies
do not actively recruit to fill these positions.
Agencies should also present job-sharing positions
as both a career destination and a potential path
to further career advancement. That is, agencies
should recognize job sharing as a legitimate and
valued career choice while also allowing interested
individuals to utilize it as an intermediary step in
pursuing a full-time law enforcement career. If police
agencies implicitly present job-sharing or part-time
assignments as inferior to full-time assignments
(or allow the agency culture to demean flexible
scheduling), participants may feel excluded and
marginalized from their agency.
8. Conduct an ongoing evaluation of flexible
scheduling programs.
Evidence-based policing should be the cornerstone
of any agency, especially concerning new policies
and procedures. It is important for agencies to
evaluate their job-sharing programs objectively and
critically to identify successes and challenges. Ideally,
agencies should partner with outside researchers to
conduct long-term assessments. Soliciting an outside
evaluation would help ensure that a program is given
sufficient time to impact recruitment and retention.
Researchers may also be able to provide advice on
how agencies can reconfigure or expand job sharing
8
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
as these programs develop. There are several
outcomes worth analyzing, including the career path
and destination of flexible schedule participants,
motivations for obtaining (and retaining) a flexible
schedule position, job satisfaction, participants’
perceptions of the agency (and experiences after
obtaining a position), trends in overall recruitment
and retention, and ways in which flexible schedule
participants contribute value to their units and
the agency overall. In addition to measuring what
agencies gain, evaluations should also identify
and measure what agencies will lose in terms of
personnel, experience, knowledge, and abilities
without the option of a flexible scheduling program.
9
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Conclusion and
Recommendations
The law enforcement profession is in the midst of
a serious recruitment and retention crisis. Agencies
are struggling to attract job applicants and, at the
same time, large numbers of officers are retiring
or departing for other professions. This crisis is
compounded by a lack of applicant and employee
diversity in most police agencies.
As police agencies evaluate and enhance their
recruitment and retention strategies, they should
consider implementing flexible scheduling
arrangements, specifically job-sharing programs
along with other programs such as volunteer and
other paid part-time positions, and the option of
extended leave. Although research indicates that
flexible scheduling may primarily benefit women, this
type of flexible scheduling may also benefit those
who are transitioning to retirement, workers caring
for other relatives, and employees experiencing
personal or family issues.
This is the key takeaway: Law enforcement must
broaden its focus when it comes to flexible
scheduling. Although administrators may not be
able to implement job sharing due to legislative,
contractual, or logistical constraints, there are
other types of flexible scheduling that may be
more feasible (e.g., part-time assignments, working
remotely, extended leave). At a time when agencies
are losing senior officers and failing to attract
new talent–especially among underrepresented
demographics–police administrators should fully
explore how flexible scheduling can improve the
recruitment, retention, and diversification of their
agencies.
10
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
References
Axios. 2021. Police Recruiting Suffers as Morale
Hits New Lows. Retrieved May 5, 2022 from https://
www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2021/05/19/police-
morale-suffers-recruiting-down.
Bannon, S., Ford, K., and Meltzer, L. 2011.
“Understanding Millennials in the Workplace.” The
CPA Journal 81(11): 61.
Barhate, B., and Dirani, K.M. 2021. “Career
Aspirations of Generation Z: A Systematic Literature
Review.” European Journal of Training and
Development.
Brandl, S.G., Stroshine, M.S., and Frank, J. 2001.
“Who Are the Complaint-Prone Officers? An
Examination of the Relationship Between Police
Officers’ Attributes, Arrest Activity, Assignment,
and Citizens’ Complaints About Excessive Force.”
Journal of Criminal Justice 29(6): 521–529.
Branine, M. 2004. “Job Sharing and Equal
Opportunities Under the New Public Management
in Local Authorities.” International Journal of Public
Sector Management 17(2): 136–152.
Brocklebank, J., and Whitehouse, H. 2003. “Job
Sharing in Academic Libraries at the Senior
Management Level: Experiences of Job Sharing at
Deputy and Director Level.” Library Management
24(4/5): 243–251.
Brudney, J.L. 1999. “The Effective Use of Volunteers:
Best Practices for the Public Sector.” Law and
Contemporary Problems 62: 219–255.
Calhoun, A. 2020. “Gen-X Women Are Caught in a
Generational Tug-of-War.” The Atlantic. https://www.
theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/01/generation-
x-women-are-facing-caregiving-crisis/604510/.
Coletrane, S. 2000. “Research on Household Labor:
Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness
of Routine Family Work. Journal of Marriage and
Family 62 (4)): 1208-1233.
Collison, J. 2005. Future of the US Labor Pool:
Survey Report. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human
Resource Management.
Crampton, S., Douglas, C., Hodge, J., and Mishra, J.
2003. “Job Sharing: Challenges and Opportunities.”
Seidman Business Review 9(1): 21–22.
Curson, C., ed. 1986. Flexible Patterns of
Work. United Kingdom: Institute of Personnel
Management.
Daniels, L. 2011. Job Sharing at Senior Level: Making
It Work. Retrieved May 15, 2022 from https://
thejobshareproject.com/3434hjkv97fgb378fbv/
jobsharefullreport.pdf.
Davies, M. 2011. Women on Boards. Retrieved May
15, 2022 from https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/31480/11-745-women-on-
boards.pdf.
Dobrin, A., and Wolf, R. 2016. “What Is Known and
Not Known About Volunteer Policing in the United
States.” International Journal of Police Science &
Management 18(3): 220–227.
11
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Dubourg, L., Ahmling, J.A., and Bujas, L. 2006. “Can
Job Sharing Work for Nurse Managers?” Australian
Health Review 30(1): 17–24.
Erickson, R.J. 2011. “Emotional Carework, Gender,
and the Division of Household Labor.” In A.I. Garey
and K.V. Hansen, eds. At the Heart of Work and
Family: Engaging the Ideas of Arlie Hochschild, pp.
61–73. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2018. Full-Time
Law Enforcement Employees by Population Group,
Percent Male and Female, 2018. Retrieved May 5,
2022 from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/
crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-74.
Forbes. 2022. Why Business Leaders Should
Consider Permanent Flexible Work Arrangements.
Retrieved May 5, 2022 from https://www.forbes.com/
sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2022/01/25/
why-business-leaders-should-consider-permanent-
flexible-work-arrangements/?sh=4ff53b9133ee.
Gallegos, K. 2020. Conducting Police Investigations
While Working Remotely. Police1. Retrieved May 26,
2022 from https://www.police1.com/police-products/
police-technology/laptops-and-tablets/articles/
conducting-police-investigations-while-working-
remotely-Y66GXgGdIX91aKl8/.
Gallup. 2020. Amid Pandemic, Confidence in Key
U.S. Institutions Surges. Retrieved May 5, 2022
from https://news.gallup.com/poll/317135/amid-
pandemic-confidence-key-institutions-surges.aspx.
Greenberg, M.A. 1984. Auxiliary Police: The Citizen’s
Approach to Public Safety. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Hayman, J.R. 2014. “On My Time Not Yours: Job
Sharing in the Context of Work/Life Balance.” New
Zealand Journal of Human Resources Management
14(1): 17–26.
Hill, L. 2007. Part-Time, Job Sharing, Flextime: The
Changing Face of Police Agencies. Huntsville, TX:
Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management
Institute of Texas.
Hubbard, T. 2019. Millennials: Adapting Police
Recruiting and Supervision Practices. Huntsville,
TX: Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management
Institute of Texas.
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
2020. The State of Recruitment: A Crisis for Law
Enforcement. Retrieved May 25, 2022 from https://
www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/239416_IACP_
RecruitmentBR_HR_0.pdf.
Lewis, S. 2001. “Restructuring Workplace Cultures:
The Ultimate Work-Family Challenge?” Women in
Management Review 16(1): 21–29.
Mansor, M., and Idris, A. 2015. “Employee Retention
in the Malaysian Banking Industry: Do Flexible
Practices Work?” South African Journal of Business
Management 46(1): 1–9.
McDonald, P., Bradley, L., and Brown, K. 2009. “‘Full-
time is a Given Here’: Part-Time Versus Full-Time
Job Quality.” British Journal of Management 20(2):
143–157.
Mourtgos, S.M., Adams, I.T., and Nix, J. 2022.
“Elevated Police Turnover Following the Summer of
George Floyd Protests: A Synthetic Control Study.”
Criminology & Public Policy 21(1): 9–33.
Paoline, E.A. III., and William, T. 2005. “The
Impact of Police Culture on Traffic Stop Searches:
An Analysis of Attitudes and Behavior.” Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management 28: 455–472.
Pepper, I. 2014. “Do Part-Time Volunteer Police
Officers Aspire To Be Regular Police Officers?” The
Police Journal 87(2): 105–113.
Perrine, L. 2009. “Job Sharing: A Viable Option for
Law Enforcement.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
78(14).
Pew Research Center, 2013. “On Pay Gap, Millennial
Women Near Parity – For Now.” https://www.
pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/12/11/on-pay-
gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/.
12
JOB-SHARING AND PART-TIME OPTIONS FOR PEACE OFFICERS: Considerations for Agencies Seeking to Implement Flexible Scheduling Policies
Police Executive Research Forum. 2021. Survey
on Police Workforce Trends. Retrieved May
5, 2022 from https://www.policeforum.org/
workforcesurveyjune2021.
Porter, L.E., and Prenzler, T. 2017. “Police Officer
Gender and Excessive Force Complaints: An
Australian Study.” Policing and Society 27(8): 865–
883.
Rabe-Hemp, C.E. 2008. “Female Officers and the
Ethic of Care: Does Officer Gender Impact Police
Behaviors?” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(5):
426–434.
Rogers, K.C., and Finks, S.W. 2009. “Job Sharing for
Women Pharmacists in Academia.” American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education 73(7).
Sacks, J., Valin, S., Casson, R.I., and Wilson, C.R.
2015. “Are 2 Heads Better Than 1?: Perspectives
on Job Sharing in Academic Family Medicine.”
Canadian Family Physician 61(1): 11–13.
Sands, A., Westerman, L., Prochnau, J., and
Blankenau, H. 2022. “Police Sexual Violence: A
Study of Policewomen as Victims.” Police Quarterly
26(1).
Schuck, A.M., and Rabe-Hemp, C. 2005. “Women
Police: The Use of Force By and Against Female
Officers.” Women and Criminal Justice 16(4): 91–
117.
Smithson, J., and Stokoe, E.H. 2005. “Discourses of
Work-Life balance: Negotiating ‘Genderblind’ Terms
in Organizations.” Gender, Work & Organization
12(2): 147–168.
Society for Human Resource Management. 2018.
2018 Employee Benefits: The Evolution of Benefits.
Retrieved May 23, 2022 from https://www.shrm.
org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-
and-surveys/Documents/2018%20Employee%20
Benefits%20Report.pdf.
Spencer, A. 2017. “Job Sharing: A Primer.” Journal
of Hospital Librarianship 17(1): 80–87.
Starheim, R.P. 2019. Women In Policing: Breaking
Barriers and Blazing a Path. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
NCJ 252963.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Quick Facts. Retrieved
May 5, 2022 from https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2009. Law Enforcement
Recruitment Toolkit. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved May 24,
2022 from https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/
files/2018-08/RecruitmentToolkit.pdf.
van Steden, R., and Mehlbaum, S.M. 2019. “Police
Volunteers in the Netherlands: A Study on Policy and
Practice.” Policing and Society 29(4): 420–433.
Weitzer, R. 2002. “Incidents of Police Misconduct
and Public Opinion.” Journal of Criminal Justice
30(5): 397–408.
Williamson, S., Cooper, R., and Baird, M. 2015. “Job-
Sharing Among Teachers: Positive, Negative (and
Unintended) Consequences.” The Economic and
Labour Relations Review 26(3): 448–464.
Wolf, R., and Bryer, T. 2020. “Applying an Outcomes-
Based Categorisation to Non-Warranted/Non-Sworn
Volunteers in United States Policing.” The Police
Journal 93(1): 42–64.
BJA helps to make American communities safer by strengthening the nation’s criminal justice
system; its grants, training and technical assistance, and policy development services provide
state, local, and tribal governments with the cutting-edge tools and best practices they need
to reduce violent and drug-related crime, support law enforcement, and combat victimization.
To learn more about BJA, visit:
bja.ojp.gov
Facebook (www.facebook.com/DOJBJA)
Twitter (@DOJBJA)
BJA is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice As sis tance Information
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJA
PERMIT NO. G–91
MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”)
DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA
(INK NOR VARNISH)
