Report - Pierce County

Transcription

Pierce County
Office of the County Council
930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1046
Tacoma, Washington 98402-2176
(253) 798-7777
FAX (253) 798-7509
TDD (253) 798-4018
1-800-992-2456
www.piercecountywa.org/council
September 4, 2014 To: Performance Audit Committee From: Bill Vetter, Sr. Legislative Analyst Re: Evaluation of Pierce County Corrections Bureau Jail Operations We are pleased to present this study of Corrections Bureau jail operations in Pierce County. The study was approved as part of the 2014 work program by the Performance Audit Committee, and undertaken to evaluate the opportunities to improve efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of operations of the jail. After a competitive bidding process, the Performance Audit Committee approved a contract with the CNA Consulting to conduct the study. (The consultants are now representing CGL Consulting.) Both CNA and CGL have extensive experience working with local governments nationally on jail issues, including on prior projects in the State of Washington. The analysis in the report was based on interviews with jail management and staff, analysis of staffing data and observations of jail operations, and extensive reviews of practices in the areas of capacity and staffing management. This report is designed to provide the Pierce County Council, Executive, and Corrections Bureau with information to assist in charting a path forward for the jail. The report includes 31 recommendations that the Corrections Bureau has addressed in their response, included in the report. The recommendations include both short‐term and longer‐term adjustments that could be made in staffing and capacity management that should reduce the overall cost of jail operations, if implemented successfully. County departments are in general agreement with the recommendations. We appreciate the extensive cooperation and effort put into this study by the staff in the Corrections Bureau and, the Department of Budget and Finance. Pierce County Corrections Bureau
Performance Audit Analysis
August 25, 2014
Evaluation of Pierce County Detention Operations
Project Team
Karl Becker • Ken McGinnis • Alan Richardson • George Vose
Pierce County Corrections Bureau
Performance Audit Analysis
August 25, 2014
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................1
Project Overview..........................................................................................................................................8
System Background....................................................................................................................................13
Jail Operations and Policy Analysis ............................................................................................................22
Capacity Management ...............................................................................................................................48
Staffing Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60
August 25, 2014
Executive Summary
This evaluation of Pierce County detention operations focused on staffing requirements, and capacity
management of the Pierce County (County) Jail System (Jail System). This report is designed to provide
the County Council, County Executive, County Sheriff, and County Corrections Bureau (Corrections
Bureau) with information needed to help develop a sound, financially stable rate-setting strategy and to
enhance the efficient and effective management of the Jail System.
This report documents the research approach, findings, and recommendations of the CNA-CGL project
team of Karl Becker, Ken McGinnis, Alan Richardson, and George Vose.
Our analysis found the Corrections Bureau faces significant challenges that affect both the operational
effectiveness of the Jail System and its cost efficiency. Our analysis of Corrections Bureau operations
includes the following findings:
•
A classification system that is excessively complex to administer and reduces management
flexibility in making the most efficient use of available jail capacity. The current system appears
to over-classify inmates, lowering the number of minimum custody inmates
•
An aging physical plant in the Main Jail, with a housing unit layout that can make effective
supervision of the inmate population difficult.
•
Excessive reliance on overtime to staff ongoing regular operational functions. There is a gap
between current Jail System post requirements and available staffing that drives a significant
portion of this overtime. Operational changes can address some of this shortfall, while
improvements in overtime management and staffing policies have potential for overtime cost
reductions.
•
Use of correctional deputies in civilian assignments.
•
Use of overflow housing units to manage peak population levels.
•
Inadequate staff training.
•
Housing and services for special need populations, particularly mentally ill inmates.
•
Lack of programs for the Jail System population.
•
Absence of alternatives to incarceration to relieve ongoing jail crowding issues.
•
Inefficient command structure.
•
An imbalance between available staffing and facility operational staffing requirements.
In terms of priorities, the most significant step the Corrections Bureau can take to improving the
efficiency of its operations is to address the issues with the classification system. This is a prerequisite
for developing a housing plan that effectively utilizes the capacity available in the Jail System. With the
development of such a plan, the Corrections Bureau can then fine-tune housing unit operations and
1
August 25, 2014
associated staffing requirements. Effective classification will also allow for identification of inmates that
can be diverted from jail into alternative programs, providing better recidivism outcomes and further
reduced operational costs.
The next step we recommend is to address staffing issues in the Corrections Bureau, including
streamlining the command structure, aligning staffing with the capacity plan produced by the
classification system, taking steps to better manage overtime, and providing adequate staffing resources
to meet recommended post requirements.
Finally, the Corrections Bureau should address key operational and program deficiencies identified in
this report. These include needed updates to policies, increased training for staff, improved supervision
of seriously mentally ill offenders, and technology initiatives that will improve the efficiency of
Corrections Bureau staff.
The following report contains 31 specific recommendations to address these issues. If implemented,
these recommendations will establish a foundation for further efficiencies that could improve the
attractiveness of the Jail System for contracting opportunities. The recommendations, by subject area,
follow below:
Operational Analysis
In comparing current Corrections Bureau operations to generally recognized industry best practices, we
found that overall performance of the Main Jail and New Jail is good when viewed in the context of
current resources and policies.
The most significant operational issue we found was the extent of reliance on overtime to operate the
Jail System. Our analysis indicates that 33,513 hours of current overtime may be attributable to a
disparity between current operational post requirements and available funding for full-time staff. This
leaves a substantial portion of overtime attributable to other factors such as operational practices and
management policies. A lack of effective systems to closely manage and monitor overtime use
contributes to these issues. Updating the relief factor and developing a more sophisticated system for
both identifying where and why overtime is incurred and how to deploy staff resources to make costeffective use of overtime are critical needs.
Lack of training is another significant issue for the Corrections Bureau. Deputies currently receive 16
hours of training per year. The recognized minimum standard for correctional staff training is 40 hours
annually. Training is one of the most effective risk management tools available to correctional
administrators. Providing staff with the best available knowledge on management expectations and how
to perform their duties has a direct correlation to operational performance, particularly in a correctional
facility working environment where issues of security and safety are omnipresent.
The Corrections Bureau generally lacks inmate programs. Evidence-based substance abuse, education,
and reentry programs can potentially lower recidivism and provide inmates with productive assignments
during their incarceration. The County has a significant number of inmates with mental health issues
who often manifest suicidal thoughts and gestures. These inmates require close observation to prevent
2
August 25, 2014
them from injuring themselves. Most jails manage this function by posting a deputy in close proximity to
the suicidal inmate, with few distractions that would impede the deputy’s ability to provide sight and
sound monitoring of the inmate’s behavior. This approach is not possible in the current housing units
designated for housing inmates with mental health issues. Based on our experience, the Jail System’s
current supervision practices do not allow deputies to properly monitor potentially suicidal inmates. This
creates substantial risk for the County.
We also noted issues in command structure related to managing the New Jail and the Main Jail as
separate systems, as opposed to two facilities that compose parts of one system.
Finally, we found that a number of Corrections Bureau policies are in need of update/revision to align
operations with best practice standards. Significant areas of concern include policies on post orders, tool
control, and use of force.
Operations Recommendations
1. Develop written policy and procedures that will document and formalize in detail the purpose,
processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau’s current system for roster
management.
2. Negotiate a change in the County’s labor contracts to allow more management discretion in
scheduling vacation leave. In the short term, explore hiring part-time or per diem deputies that can
be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu of overtime. If permissible
under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are interested in working parttime.
3. Develop a system for collecting data on overtime and roster management that identifies the shift,
location, pay period, and category of operational need that drives each hour of overtime incurred.
Use this data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of overtime versus additional staff to
meet operational requirements.
4. Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close supervision due to the threat of
suicide. Unit 3 South F, which is a small linear housing unit where a deputy has the capability of
directly observing inmates through their cell door and also on a video monitor, provides an effective
solution for this issue.
5. Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all be transported separately.
6. Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost-effective means to provide pre-shift briefing information
through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols. The current methodology to
brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a daily basis regarding
policy/procedure issues and operational matters.
7. Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in-service training for all custody staff. In order to
develop and support the training program, the Corrections Bureau should re-establish the position
of training officer. This individual will be responsible for organizing pre-service and in-service
3
August 25, 2014
training for eligible employees and ensure that a quality training program is in place and being
delivered.
8. Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the New Jail.
9. Explore the potential expansion of video hearings for district court motion and plea hearing sessions
and superior court arraignments.
10. Develop a long-range plan to augment the current camera surveillance system with cameras
installed in inmate housing areas.
11. Commence development of a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security electronics to
control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating the need to carry
cellblock keys into the living units.
12. Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of video visitation systems to
supplant current visiting systems in the jails.
13. Revise the policy manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post orders, tool control, use of
force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update of the policy manual.
Capacity Management
The long-term decline in the County’s commitment population, combined with the recent drop in the
number of contract inmates in the Jail System, has resulted in a sharp increase in the total amount of
unused capacity in the jails. Since 2012, the number of vacant beds in the system has grown by 51% to
647 projected vacant beds in 2014. This means that 38% of the system’s total available jail capacity will
be vacant in 2014. This represents one of the lowest levels of jail occupancy of any major county jail
system in the United States.
Looking only at funded operational capacity (those housing units that have assigned staff and are
actively used for inmate housing), about 76% of the vacant operational capacity at the time of this
review was in housing units designated for special needs populations, with the remainder scattered
through general population housing units.
The primary challenge of jail capacity management is to align the housing of the inmate population with
available capacity based on risk profile, while maximizing the efficiency and the effectiveness of inmate
supervision. This task requires an effective classification system tied to a facility capacity utilization plan.
The Corrections Bureau’s use of a highly complex classification system actually complicates effective
utilization of capacity by creating a larger than normal number of custody levels. The degree of
complexity and the configuration of multiple small housing units make use of the system problematic for
Jail System staff. Combined with the Jail System’s policy that all pre-sentence inmates must be placed in
medium security or higher levels, the current classification system produces underutilization of
minimum security capacity in the New Jail.
4
August 25, 2014
Within the Main Jail, Housing Units 3 East and 4 East present the greatest challenge in terms of
supervision and housing of the types of offenders presently in the Jail System. The design of the housing
units makes ongoing supervision virtually impossible. These units should be closed and the offenders
relocated to empty beds, while also opening one of the closed units in the New Jail.
Capacity Management Recommendations
14. Compress the number of security classification levels from the present nine levels to a system
that utilizes three to four levels.
15. Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female offenders.
16. Remove mandatory requirement that all pre-sentence inmates remain in medium security until
sentenced. A review of the inmate’s history and review of the circumstances of the charges and
arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre-sentence offenders classified as appropriate
for minimum security housing.
17. Conduct a formal study and potential replacement of the classification instrument to achieve a
more normal distribution of the inmate population into minimum custody.
18. Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail System. Juveniles should be housed in
the County’s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract detention facility.
19. Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit with trained staff,
pending revalidation of the Jail System’s classification system.
20. Close Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail and open one of the closed housing units
in the New Jail.
Staffing Analysis
The project team conducted a task analysis of the job duties and workload associated with each post.
Our analysis proposes a total Corrections Bureau staffing level of 309 positions. Of this total, 259
positions are correctional deputies. This compares with a current deputy staffing level of 243.
Relative to current Corrections Bureau operations, we recommend elimination of 16 positions, adding
22 positions associated with recommended new posts, converting 5 officer positions to civilians, and
adding 8 positions associated with updating the relief factor. The net impact of these reductions is an
increase of 14 staff. The net fiscal impact of all of these recommendations, however, is a savings of
$34.9 thousand. The reduction in overtime created by the update of the relief factor, the salary savings
from conversion of 5 officer positions to civilians, and the high level of savings from the recommended
reductions in command staff all combine to largely offset the additional cost created by the
recommended 22 new positions. The following table summarizes the staffing and fiscal impact of the
recommended staffing plan:
5
August 25, 2014
Recommendation
Eliminate one captain post
Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post
Eliminate housing unit posts for Units 3 East and 4 East
Add housing unit post to New Jail
Add shift/roster sergeant post
Add Main Jail Unit sergeant post
Add Housing Unit 3 South control post
Add Housing Unit 3 South post
Convert courts/IT sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance,
supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions
Update relief factor
Total
Staffing
Impact
(1)
(4)
(11)
5
5
3
4
5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Fiscal Impact
($000)
(169.3)
(603.6)
(1,076.5)
538.2
500.9
300.5
302.0
377.5
$
8 $
14 $
(182.8)
(21.8)
(34.9)
The recommended staffing plan addresses key areas driving overtime utilization and should reduce the
routine use of overtime to perform ongoing operational functions. The plan also addresses several key
risk areas and sources of potential risk and moves the operation of the Corrections Bureau closer to
compliance with recognized best practices.
Staffing Recommendations
21. Assign one of the two captain positions the operations captain for the Corrections Bureau and
end the current dual operational command. The second captain position can be eliminated as a
cost savings measure. The new administrative lieutenant (Prison Rape Elimination Act
[PREA]/Medical) position can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other
support units within the organization, and that position can report to the operations captain.
22. Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail and the New Jail,
consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and should be filled on
a 24 hours-per-day/7 days-per-week (24/7) basis.
23. Convert the courts/information technology (IT) sergeant post to a civilian position with
information technology experience and qualifications.
24. Create a shift/roster sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for shift commanders
and manage staff deployment.
25. Create a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing shifts seven days per week
to better manage existing workload demands.
26. Create a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7 coverage to provide improved
supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit.
27. Create a housing unit post for Housing Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective,
centralized supervision of inmates on suicide watch status.
28. Convert the low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to
civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related experience and qualifications.
6
August 25, 2014
29. Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light-duty post to six months, thereby
reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable number.
30. Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to document its accuracy.
31. Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff required to provide
recommended post coverage without reliance upon overtime. In order to maximize operational
efficiency, we recommend that the relief factor update be applied to the recommended post
roster, which incorporates the operational improvements developed in this report.
7
August 25, 2014
Project Overview
In February 2014, the County contracted with CNA and its associate for this project, CGL, to conduct a
performance audit analysis of their Jail System operations. The project team requested a substantial
amount of data and other background information in February to begin our analysis. On-site work
commenced in March with stakeholder interviews, a detailed review of facility operations, and
assessment of Jail System facilities. On-site review and data analysis continued through May and
culminated in submission of a draft report for review by the County at the end of May.
The project focused on operational staffing requirements and capacity utilization in the Corrections
Bureau, which manages the County’s Jail System facilities. In addition, the project team reviewed Jail
System facility operations to determine consistency with contemporary best practices in corrections
operations and management. The following report documents our research approach, findings, and
recommendations. The report provides recommendations for consideration by the County Council,
County Executive, County Sheriff, and Corrections Bureau management to enhance the efficient and
effective management of the Jail System.
Objective and Methods
The goal of this project was to identify measures to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
County’s Jail System staffing, court transportation practices, and utilization of space. The following
specific objectives follow from this overarching goal:
1. Analyze and evaluate staffing, scheduling, and court transportation practices. Are there
opportunities to reduce costs or improve operational effectiveness through changes to Jail System
staffing, scheduling practices, and court transportation?
2. Analyze and evaluate Jail System space utilization for detention programs. Is the use of jail space
for detention optimized based on the current Jail System population, normal fluctuations in the
population, and future projections of population?
3. Identify and determine the applicability of best practices in detention operations from other
jurisdictions to Pierce County. Are current operational practices in the Jail System consistent with
recognized national standards and best practices employed in other jurisdictions?
Factors in Assessing Staffing
In order to address these objectives, the project team reviewed the operations, mission, and program
activities of the Corrections Bureau. In the process of performing this analysis, we examined a number
of factors that have a critical impact upon staffing and operations, including the following:
8
August 25, 2014
•
Facility layout: The design of a facility lays out the framework by which the facility operates. The
physical design of the facility, in large measure, determines the minimum number of correctional
officer posts required to provide adequate supervision of the population.
•
Supervision approach: There are two general models for inmate supervision, each with a different
impact on Jail System staffing requirements. Direct supervision is a method of inmate management
which requires continuing direct contact between inmates and staff. Correctional deputies work
inside the housing unit in close proximity to the inmates. This allows the deputies to closely monitor
the behavior of inmates and enforce rules and discipline, creating a more orderly environment.
Violence is often deterred by the presence of deputies inside the unit, and inmates are more easily
controlled in a direct supervision operation. Indirect supervision facilities are characterized by the
presence of barriers that separate deputies from the inmate population. Deputies observe inmates
from a distance, separated by a secure barrier that is often constructed of security glazing, allowing
the deputies to view the activities inside the living area depending on available sightlines.
•
Population density: The number of inmates housed in a space has significant implications for the
level of tension in a facility, potential for disturbance, and demands placed upon staff in maintaining
order. The addition of beds to a housing unit designed for a lower capacity and the attendant issues
that go with jail crowding can create pressure for more staffing to assure adequate supervision and
security.
•
Inmate classification: The type of inmates housed in a facility will have a large bearing on the need
for supervision and the level of risk present in an institution. The classification of inmates in terms of
their potential security threat (i.e., maximum, medium, and minimum security) has a direct bearing
on required staffing.
•
Inmate movement patterns: The degree of inmate movement for scheduled activities and services
within the facility and the nature of that movement (escorted or unescorted) relates directly to the
degree of control exercised over inmate behavior and the staffing required to enforce that level of
control.
•
Transportation requirements for court and medical services: The frequency with which inmates
must leave a facility for court appearances/medical services has a significant impact upon staffing.
Prolonged absences by officers detailed to provide security on such inmate trips create a need for
additional staff to provide adequate coverage at a facility.
•
Perimeter and interior security systems: The number and use of manned posts compared to
technology-based perimeter systems, such as intrusion detection, will have an important bearing on
a facility’s required staffing level. The nature of the perimeter or internal security systems used in a
facility can either create a significant demand for additional staff or reduce staffing needs.
•
Surveillance technology: Technology deployed to provide ongoing surveillance of inmate activity
can increase the efficiency of staff by monitoring multiple locations or blind spots in an institution.
9
August 25, 2014
•
Relief coverage: Understanding officer leave usage and other factors that make officers unavailable
for duty is critical to assuring an adequate number of staff to provide coverage of post assignments.
•
Staff turnover: Vacancies not only impact the need to cover posts and the availability of staff to
cover posts, but also can negatively affect operations. Excessive turnover can result in staff that lack
experience and require additional training and supervision.
•
Training policies: The degree to which training activity takes staff away from their duties creates
demands for relief staff, or alternatively, the use of overtime.
•
Division of responsibility with civilian staff: In any institution there are a number of positions that
either do not involve inmate supervision or, while there is direct contact with inmates, do not
necessarily require correctional officer training. Examples of functions that may be provided by
either officers or civilians include personal property management, dietary services, classifications,
and commissary services.
•
Prioritization of posts: The ability of management to objectively evaluate facility post requirements
and determine which posts can be safely closed under certain circumstances facilitates the efficient
allocation of staff.
Data Sources
Our information gathering and data review process used three primary approaches: document review,
staff interviews, and post inspections. To conduct the staffing assessment and develop
recommendations, the project team conducted a detailed analysis of data obtained from the County.
Our data request included tables of organization for the Corrections Bureau; instruments used by the
classifications unit to classify inmates and determine appropriate housing; schematic and other
illustrations of facility design; previous staffing and capacity management studies; descriptions of
programs and activities; and the facility mission statement, security policies and procedures, budgets,
shift schedules, labor contracts, staff assignment rosters, and human resource policies.
The project team also requested staff leave data for the last three years. These data were used to
update the calculation of the Corrections Bureau’s shift relief factor to ensure that staffing levels
necessary to cover the current and recommended posts are accurate and understood by the County
stakeholders and Corrections Bureau management. The shift relief factor calculation is an essential part
of the determination of staffing needs at a facility. Once needed posts are identified and the hours of
coverage determined, the relief factor is applied to determine the number of FTEs (full-time equivalents)
that should be assigned to a facility in order to adequately cover the posts. Once the number of staff or
FTEs is determined, work schedules can be prepared. We provide a description of the shift relief factor
calculation later in this report
In order to gain a complete understanding of operational practices, staffing deployment, and unique
facility requirements, we conducted group and individual interviews of Corrections Bureau command
10
August 25, 2014
staff, line officers, and supervisors in each functional area of the Jail System. These interviews provided
a more in-depth understanding of the operational issues underlying the data collected.
Finally, the project team observed and reviewed post assignments in both the Main Jail and New Jail
during each operating shift, including all three primary custody shifts: 7:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m.–
11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. The review included observation of post activities and multiple
visits to the physical plants of both facilities.
Additionally, the project team met with the supervisor of the court security/escort team to evaluate the
escort of inmates to courts, as well as other Jail System supervisors. A tour was also conducted of the
courthouse, including holding areas and courtrooms. The project team also became familiar with the
system’s inmate placement methodology, known as the inmate classification process, in order to
understand how inmate management and housing practices impact staffing. We assessed the
consistency of staff activities and post assignments with current operational policies and practices,
identifying major strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.
Approach to Staffing Analysis
Our evaluation of supervisory posts focused on the specific tasks and duties performed by the
supervisor in question. Lieutenants serve as shift commanders and are responsible for all activity and
personnel during shift. When there is a shortage of personnel due to vacancies, discharge of benefit
leave, or other authorized leave, the lieutenant is responsible for either curtailing activities, locating
available personnel to fill the vacant post, or possibly authorizing overtime to cover the post.
Lieutenants are also responsible for asserting command if a disturbance takes place and also are
required to personally report to a disturbance as a first responder.
Sergeants in the Jail System are first line supervisors that supervise the activity of corrections deputies
who are manning the various posts in the institution. These sergeants directly supervise the deputies
and are first responders to emergency situations. Sergeants’ span of control in the Jail System is an
important factor to assess in determining if there are a sufficient number of supervisors available to
monitor staff performance and address emergent situations.
Our assessment of corrections deputy posts examined both the level of inmate supervision required and
the work activities associated with each specific post. Deputies have duties that are mandated by
policy/Jail System procedures. These are often described as “post orders.” The post order outlines
general and specific duties that the deputy is required to perform. For example, deputies typically
perform inmate census counts, arrange for meal service, distribute property/commissary, deliver mail,
and release inmates for recreation, showers, hearings, programming, visitation, and medical
appointments and to receive medication. Deputies also conduct searches, perform wellness checks of
inmates, and supervise inmate workers. Deputies that work housing unit posts are also responsible for
sanitation and cleanliness of the units. Deputies assigned to the Booking Area process detainees into the
facility, conduct searches, evaluate a detainee’s general health, make referrals to medical staff,
inventory property, and also process detainees that have been released. A booking deputy must also
11
August 25, 2014
understand complex legal commitment paperwork to ensure that a detainee is legally committed to the
facility or release documents are in proper order.
Control Room personnel have specific responsibilities to operate emergency equipment and
communication systems, as well as observing inmate activity on monitors. Control Rooms are
responsible for allowing ingress and egress to and from the facility. Escort personnel are typically
assigned to conduct searches, as well as movement of detainees to and from their housing units to core
services, such as the Medical Department and Visitation.
In assessing staff post assignments, we used the following general criteria:
•
Post assignments should be established in accordance with the goal of maintaining staff efficiency.
•
Post responsibilities are completed by personnel in the appropriate position classification.
•
Officer assignment practices are flexible enough to deploy staff as needed to respond to changing
needs through the activity and work schedule while maintaining post assignment security.
•
Applicable local, state, and federal staffing regulations are met.
•
Overtime use is held to the minimal level required to perform critical operational functions.
•
Division and Jail System command structures provide appropriate supervisory coverage.
•
Staff deployment is consistent with detainee classification and housing practices.
12
August 25, 2014
System Background
The Corrections Bureau manages the Jail System, which is housed in the Pierce County Detention and
Corrections Center, located at 910 Tacoma Avenue South in Tacoma, Washington. The center includes
two primary facilities, the “Main Jail” and the “New Jail,” located adjacent to each other and connected
through an underground corridor.
Physical Plant
The Main Jail includes a small housing unit that dates back to 1954, as well as a larger set of housing
units opened in 1984. All housing in the Main Jail provides for indirect supervision of medium and
maximum security inmates, meaning the correctional deputies observe and manage inmates from
behind a security barrier. The facility also houses the Clinic Unit, which provides medical and dental
services for the Jail System. The Main Jail has a reported current capacity of 706 beds.
The New Jail opened in 2003 and contains twelve 84-bed direct supervision dormitory housing units
capable of housing minimum and medium security offenders. Six of these housing units are now vacant.
Counting only the units in operation, the New Jail has a current capacity of 504 beds. The New Jail also
houses Central Control, which controls access and movement throughout both facilities, as well as the
Intake/Release Unit, which books new offenders and processes releases. In addition, the New Jail
provides meal preparation, commissary, and laundry services for the entire Jail System.
Population Characteristics
The Jail System housed an average daily population (ADP) of 1,149 inmates in 2013. While primarily
housing felons, the Jail System population in 2013 did include a substantial misdemeanant population,
averaging 22% of the system’s population over the year. Much of this population was associated with
the City of Tacoma contract for municipal arrestees. Correspondingly, approximately 27% of the Jail
System population was in sentenced as opposed to pre-sentenced status in 2013.
Figure 1: 2013 Jail System ADP by Class of Crime
22%
78%
Felons
Misdemeanants
13
August 25, 2014
Figure 2: 2013 Jail System ADP by Sentence Status
27%
73%
Pre-Sentenced
Sentenced
Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau
Like all county jail systems in Washington, Pierce County is responsible for housing charged and
sentenced felons, but may house misdemeanants subject to agreement with municipal authorities. The
substantial amount of excess capacity in the New Jail creates a significant opportunity for leasing beds
to other jurisdictions. Current clients for jail bed capacity include the Washington Department of
Corrections (WADOC) for parole violators, U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), and the
U.S. Marshals Service. At the beginning of last year, the City of Tacoma terminated their relationship
with the County and now houses their inmates in the Fife Jail. This cost the County roughly $6 million in
revenue and led to the closing of three housing units in the New Jail.
In terms of demographics, the Jail System is 84% male. Whites make up 58% of the ADP, with African-Americans
comprising 26%.
Figure 3: 2013 Jail System ADP by Sex
16%
84%
Male
Female
14
August 25, 2014
Figure 4: 2013 Jail System ADP by Ethnicity
6%
3%
7%
58%
26%
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
In addition to the adult population, the Jail System houses approximately six to eight juvenile offenders
at any given time. These offenders have been determined to require enhanced security by the juvenile
court’s detention center and are subsequently referred to the Jail System.
Trends
Over the last 10 years, the Jail System has shown a brief period of growth, reaching a 1,490 ADP in 2007
before declining and stabilizing over the last 5 years. In 2013, the Jail System population resumed its
decline, dropping 11% to 1,149, with a further projected drop to 1,070 in 2014, an additional 7% decline.
This represents the lowest population level maintained in the Jail System since the 1990s.
Assessing these changes in Jail System population levels requires disaggregating the total ADP into its
two primary components: County commitments and contract inmates. Figure 5 shows the relative share
of the total ADP of the Jail System for both of these populations over the last 10 years. During this time
period, the contract inmate population averaged 156 inmates or 11.8% of the total population. More
significantly, changes in the contract inmate population have tended to moderate larger swings in the
number of Jail System commitments. For example, the County’s commitment population dropped by
18.5% between 2007 and 2010, but the total Jail System population declined by only 12.5%, because the
contract inmate population increased significantly during this same period. The exception to this trend
occurred in 2013, when the sudden drop in the contract inmate population attributable to the loss of
the City of Tacoma inmates accounted for 71% of the overall drop in the Jail System population.
15
August 25, 2014
Figure 5: Pierce County Jail System Population: 2005-2013
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Pierce County ADP
2010
2011
2012
2013
Contract ADP
Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau (Pierce County ADP includes both felons and County misdemeanors
Taking away the fluctuations in the contract inmate population, the most significant trend over the last
10 years has been the sustained decline in the number of County commitments to the Jail System
population. As shown in Figure 6, the County’s experience largely follows national trends, which have
shown a declining jail population since 2008.
Figure 6: Pierce County Jail System Commitments and National Jail Population Trends
1,400
850,000
800,000
1,300
750,000
1,200
700,000
1,100
650,000
1,000
600,000
550,000
900
500,000
800
450,000
400,000
700
2005
2006
2007
2008
Pierce County ADP
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
National Jail Population
Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau (Pierce County ADP includes both felons and County misdemeanors
16
August 25, 2014
With the opening of the New Jail’s 1,008 total beds in 2003, the Jail System has operated with a
perpetual surplus of beds throughout the growth and subsequent decline of the Jail System’s ADP over
the last 10 years. As a result, the County has established operational capacity as a more relevant
indicator of the number of jail beds readily available for occupancy. Operational capacity includes only
those housing units in the New Jail that have been allocated funds for staffing and support costs.
Accordingly, operational capacity does not include the New Jail’s vacant housing units. Figure 7
compares operational and rated capacity of the Jail System with the ADP experienced over the last 10
years. The 252-bed drop in operational capacity in 2013 again reflects the loss of the City of Tacoma
contract inmates, which resulted in the closure of three 84-bed housing units in the New Jail.
Figure 7: Jail System Capacity and Population: 2005-2014
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
ADP
2008
2009
Rated Capacity
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014 est.
Operational Capacity
The long-term decline in the County commitment population, combined with the recent drop in the
number of contract inmates in the Jail System, has resulted in a sharp increase in the total amount of
unused capacity. The number of vacant beds has grown by 51% since 2012, to 647 projected vacant
beds in 2014; therefore, 38% of the system’s jail capacity will be vacant in 2014. This represents one of
the lowest levels of jail occupancy in any major county jail system in the United States. Planning
documents indicate that both the County and the consultant hired to assess Jail System needs projected
a continued high rate of growth in jail population that would support a 1,000-bed expansion of capacity
over and above Main Jail capacity.
Projections made at the time indicated that the Jail System population would grow to 1,772 inmates by
2007. There was also an expectation that until such time as the facility was filled, the additional capacity
17
August 25, 2014
could be used to generate revenue from municipalities leasing jail beds from the County. This projection
of inmate population growth proved wildly inaccurate. In fairness, the County was not alone in
projecting that the steady growth in the Jail System population experienced in the 1990s would continue
in the future. Moreover, a number of other jurisdictions also expanded capacity with the purpose to
contract to municipalities. This ultimately resulted in a surplus of jail beds in northwest Washington
available for contract on the market, which further depressed potential demand for the additional
capacity developed by the County. Figure 8 summarizes the surplus capacity in the Jail System over the
last 10 years.
Figure 8: Pierce County Jail System Vacant Beds: 2005-2014
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
est.
The design of the New Jail, with all of its capacity in 84-bed direct supervision dormitories, is appropriate
given the configuration and amount of higher security capacity in the Main Jail. The use of these types of
bed is consistent with best practices in jail design. Moreover, direct supervision dormitories are less
expensive to construct and operate. The direct supervision model, used in the New Jail, can be used to
effectively manage minimum and medium security jail inmates. These offenders make up the majority of
the Jail System population. Accordingly, the large amount of unused capacity at the New Jail is a result
of overbuilding based on a flawed forecast of future jail population levels, not the construction of the
wrong type of capacity.
The staffing ratio in the New Jail housing units is 1:84 (one deputy for every 84 inmates). This is a very
efficient staffing model for a direct supervision housing unit. Staffing ratios in the Main Jail vary
somewhat, with units that house more difficult populations requiring a higher staffing ratio. Figure 9
shows current staffing ratios in Main Jail housing units compared to the New Jail. The analysis shows
18
August 25, 2014
two Main Jail units with significantly higher ratios and three Main Jail units with slightly lower staffing
ratios than staff/inmate ratios in the New Jail.
Figure 9: Comparison of New Jail and Main Jail Housing Unit Staff Ratios
New Jail
Main Jail, Unit 4E
Main Jail, Unit 3E
Main Jail, Unit 4S
Main Jail, Unit 4W
Main Jail, Unit 4N
Current
Staffing Ratio
1:84
1:54
1:62
1:90
1:90
1:90
Budget
Fiscal year (FY) 2014 estimated spending for the Corrections Bureau totals $50,444,043. With a
projected ADP of 1,070, this equates to an average daily cost per inmate of $129.16. The budgeted
capacity for 2014 remains 1,213 beds. The reduction in the contract inmate population, which began in
2013 and will be fully annualized in 2014, results in a loss of $7.2 million from the level of revenue
generated by these contracts in FY 2014.
The County accounts for program expenditures for the Corrections Bureau in 11 different program
categories. Approximately 75% of spending goes to supervising inmates and providing facility security,
food service, and basic medical and mental health treatment. This ratio is consistent with the typical
spending allocations of most large jail systems. In virtually all systems, the cost of staff, medical care,
and food are the predominant factors driving jail spending. Figure 10 summarizes the breakdown of the
program components of the Jail System spending.
19
August 25, 2014
Figure 10: Corrections Bureau FY 2014 Budget by Program
Classification
2%
Reception
2%
Mental Health
4%
Food
4%
Release
3%
Court Transp.
7%
Medical
15%
Work Debt Service
Crew
5% Admin.
0%
4%
Care & Custody of
Prisoners
54%
Source: Pierce County 2014 Budget
Roughly 68% of the Corrections Bureau’s FY 2014 budget goes to support a staff of 297.9 FTEs (this
reflects the elimination of 37.4 health care staff resulting from contracting out for health care services
and 28.6 custody-related positions resulting from reduced municipal contracts). Custody staff (
corrections deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains) make up 276, or 93%, of these positions.
Figure 11 summarizes Corrections Bureau staffing by position over the last four years.
20
August 25, 2014
Figure 11: Corrections Bureau Staffing, 2011-2014
Bureau chief
Physician
Detective sergeant
Nurse practioner
Correctional captain
Physician assistant
Nurse supervisor
Mental health manager
Budget & fiscal manager
Health services manager
Correctional sergeant
Registered nurse
Mental health specialist
Pharmacist
Correctional lieutenant
Clinic admin. assistant
Dept. computer support
Pre-trial services screener
Corrections deputy
Accounting assistant
Licensed practical nurse
Correctional technician
Office assistant
Clinical coordinator
Cook
Total
FY 2011
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
22.0
15.0
7.0
0.4
12.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
276.0
3.0
14.0
3.0
5.5
1.0
3.0
380.9
FY 2012
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
22.0
15.0
7.0
0.4
12.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
275.0
3.0
14.0
3.0
5.5
373.9
FY 2013
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
22.0
15.0
7.0
0.4
12.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
266.0
3.0
14.0
3.0
5.5
364.9
FY 2014
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
19.0
7.0
12.0
1.0
2.0
243.0
2.0
2.4
3.5
297.9
Source: Pierce County 2014 Budget
21
August 25, 2014
Jail Operations and Policy Analysis
The project team conducted a comprehensive review of Corrections Bureau operating practices and
policies. We examined the policy and procedure manuals in use at the jails, observed current
operational practices, and assessed systems for assuring compliance with policies. We also compared
Corrections Bureau operational practices with industry best practices. The following section of the
report highlights our key observations and findings.
Roster Management Policies
Effective roster management systems maximize efficient use of staff resources through the use of post
analyses, master rosters, daily rosters, and an ongoing recapitulation of actual staff utilization. When
properly applied, roster management systems create the means by which jail commanders can ensure
existing staff resources are allocated appropriately, and staffing needs are communicated effectively.
The master roster includes all positions required to operate the jails, their assigned shifts, days off, and
assignments. The document details which officers are available for assignment and when they are
available, taking into consideration scheduled leave and special assignments. From this document, the
daily roster is developed and manpower needs can be projected.
The office of the administrative lieutenant conducts roster management for the Corrections Bureau. The
administrative lieutenant maintains a software program and database of existing positions and post
assignments. Post assignments are designated as either mandatory posts, which must be filled at all
designated times, or discretionary posts, which are those posts that serve a less critical function. The
administrative lieutenant maintains a listing of personnel, their shifts, and days off. However, there is no
policy or written procedure that guides the administrative lieutenant in developing schedules for
deploying personnel. Instead, the lieutenant relies on his knowledge of facility operations, as well as
guidance from the two captains and the chief of jail operations. Most jail systems of this size document
their roster management practices in policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Develop written policy and procedures that document and formalize in
detail the purpose, processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau’s
current system for roster management.
The administrative lieutenant advises the captains and jail chief of the personnel needs of the various
shifts and recommends the assignment of positions to achieve an allocation of staff resources that
meets operational needs. A review of the master schedule maintained by the administrative lieutenant
indicates an effort to balance the shifts to ensure that sufficient personnel are available on each day to
staff-required operations and to minimize the use of overtime to perform operations.
The shift lieutenants receive the schedule of available personnel from the administrative lieutenant in
order to prepare the daily roster. Each lieutenant then prepares the roster based upon his/her
assessment of an individual deputy’s talents and abilities. There are certain posts that require training
and special skills, such as Booking and the Control Room, and must be staffed by deputies who have the
22
August 25, 2014
requisite skills and training. The shift commanders rotate deputies between posts, which allows them to
experience different procedures and practices and enhance their skills. For certain stressful assignments,
the rotation process allows deputies to get a break and experience other job duties that are less
demanding. There is no policy that dictates this practice, and it is within the discretion of the lieutenants
to rotate assignments based on their judgment.
Shift assignments are guided by the labor contract, which mandates that shift assignments are made
through seniority-based shift bidding, conducted annually. Shift bidding is applicable to deputies and
sergeants. Day shift hours are 7 a.m.–3 p.m., swing shift hours are 3 p.m. –11 p.m., and night shift hours
are 11 p.m. –7 a.m. A number of staff are on administrative shifts that typically operate during the day
shift, or to coincide with business hours. Selected posts, such as inmate work crew, work a 10-hour day,
four days per week.
Deputies’ and sergeants’ days off are based on a 28-day rotation, where at the end of 28 days the
employee’s days off move forward by two days. For example, one month the employee has Monday and
Tuesday off, and 28 days later has Wednesday and Thursday off. The rotation continues every 28 days.
This system assures an individual of having part of the weekend off during predictable periods of the
year. Lieutenants also rotate, and there are three sets of days off a lieutenant may have: Sunday–
Monday, Wednesday–Thursday, or Friday–Saturday. On Tuesday, all lieutenants are present and
available. This is known as the “power day,” when all lieutenants are available for meetings and special
project work.
The labor contract between the County and the deputy’s guild, although mandating bidding, recognizes
that the employer has the right to allocate the number of duty posts per shift, but that employees will
bid shifts by classification seniority. Seniority is the determining factor for placement within the
configuration, with the exception of probationary employees, who are not eligible to bid for shifts.
Employees in designated “career development” positions are also exempt from the bidding process.
The process for selection to one of these positions includes filing an application in response to a job
announcement. Interviews or oral boards are scheduled, which includes a union member as a voting
member. Each candidate is interviewed and graded, then ranked and placed on a list. Selection is made
directly from the list. Personnel are assigned to these exempt positions for a three-year period. The
administrative lieutenant and low voltage deputy are exempt from this process and are appointed
directly by the chief of jail operations. The majority of career development positions work an
administrative shift Monday through Friday, with weekends off.
Overtime Management
The FY 2014 budget for overtime for the Corrections Bureau is $2,275.0 thousand. This represents
approximately 9% of budgeted spending on staff compensation. Spending to date through May 23, 2014
on overtime totaled $911,293. The Corrections Bureau projects actual overtime spending of $2,689.0
thousand in 2014. This will produce a $414.0 thousand deficit over the budgeted level. Our analysis
23
August 25, 2014
examines overtime management in terms of what factors drive overtime use and the trade-offs
between hiring additional relief staff and reliance on overtime.
The primary causes of ongoing, regular use of overtime in a jail are typically heavy demand for services
above and beyond normal operations (such as extra details to transport larger than expected numbers
of inmates to court or to provide security for inmates receiving hospital care), failure to responsibly
manage overtime use, or an imbalance between the number of posts required to operate a facility and
the number of staff available for assignment to these posts. Use of overtime is also an efficient and
appropriate measure to respond to short-term vacancies, fill posts with variable workloads, or staff work
functions that do not consistently require a full-time deputy. For these types of job assignments, hiring
full-time staff can result in more staff hours than required by the job assignment. Other strategies used
to address a difference between existing staffing levels and staffing requirements include periodically
closing a post assignment on the shift, merging post assignment responsibilities, and modifying program
and activity schedules. These management actions, in conjunction with judicious use of overtime,
provide effective and flexible responses to issues created by short-term vacancies and variable
workloads. Hiring of new staff, however, remains the recommended response for filling permanent, fulltime posts.
The County lacks a system for adequately documenting the causes and use of overtime within the
Corrections Bureau. Standardized data on the utilization of overtime by post, shift, and cause is not
available. The limited information on overtime made available during this review entailed a significant
effort on the part of Corrections Bureau management staff to manually collect and code data on
overtime use. The County spends in excess of $2 million annually on Corrections Bureau overtime
without the means to definitively determine how and why these expenditures are incurred.
We produced the following analysis of overtime from the limited data made available to us. An
assessment of the validity and reliability of this data is beyond the scope of this report.
In order to place current overtime use in context, we compared projected overtime spending metrics for
FY 2014 with the overtime experience of the Corrections Bureau over the last 10 years, from FY 2004–FY
2013. As shown in Figure 12, current levels of overtime spending are very much in line with the
experience of the Corrections Bureau over this time period and, if anything, are somewhat lower than
historical experience. Overtime spending in aggregate and as a percentage of total spending is down
significantly in 2014 from the 10-year comparison period. A significant portion of this reduction is
attributable to the elimination of overtime paid to nurses. Nurse staffing is now provided under contract
and incurs no overtime. Controlling for population and staffing levels shows that overtime spending per
deputy and per inmate is up slightly in FY 2014 versus the experience of the past 10 years.
24
August 25, 2014
Figure 12: Comparison of Overtime Spending in 2014 vs. 10-Year Average
Overtime
Deputies
ADP
OT as % of budget
OT per deputy
OT per ADP
$
$
$
$
$
2004-2013
Average
3,103,456 $
281
1,299
6.7%
11,016 $
2,386 $
2014
2,689,426
243
1,070
5.3%
11,068
2,513
Difference
-13.3%
-13.6%
-17.6%
-20.3%
0.5%
5.3%
Current levels of overtime spending are consistent with long-term trends. This indicates a significant
structural reliance on overtime is a consistent, longstanding practice for the Corrections Bureau, despite
significant variations in staffing and facility population levels over the last 10 years. This does not
necessarily indicate a cause for reliance on overtime; it simply documents that the Corrections Bureau
has a longstanding practice of relying on overtime.
More recently, County timekeeping records indicate that from October 1, 2013 to May 25, 2014,
Corrections Bureau deputies incurred 32,198.6 hours of overtime. This annualizes to a projected 52,323
hours of overtime on an annual basis. Corrections Bureau data summaries show that 88% of overtime
hours were required to meet “minimum facility staffing requirements.” These reports also provide a
code indicating the reason for staff unavailability. Figure 13 shows the distribution of reported reasons
for overtime hours designated to meet minimum facility staffing requirements.
Figure 13: Overtime Required to Meet Minimum Staffing Requirements
Other 13%
Furlough/hol.
21%
Training 6%
Military 5%
Sick 26%
Vacation 27%
Source: PierceFigure
Source:
County1Pierce
Corrections
County
Bureau
Corrections Bureau 1
Of the remaining overtime, the reports indicate that 2,669.7 hours were used to provide supervision for
inmates receiving hospital care. This represents 8.3 percent of overtime reported for the period.
25
August 25, 2014
Overtime is also created by management decisions to open overflow units at times of peak population
levels. In the first quarter of 2014, opening overflow housing units resulted in 144 operating shifts for
these units, staffed entirely with overtime. This accounts for 1,152 hours of overtime.
This level of overtime to fill basic operational posts can indicate an imbalance between staff available for
assignment and operational post requirement, a conscious policy to rely on overtime in the belief that it
is more efficient than hiring new staff, inefficient scheduling/balancing of staff resources, or an
inadequate relief staffing pool.
In examining potential causes for overtime, we calculated the total number of deputy, sergeant, and
lieutenant work hours required given the current complement of established posts and compared this
with total funded staff positions supported in the 2014 budget. Our analysis of current Corrections
Bureau operations documented the annual number of hours required for each post, whether the post
required relief, and the average amount of hours staff are available to work a given post over the course
of a year.
The Corrections Bureau operates with 181 current posts. These posts in turn require 488,408 hours of
staff coverage. Available staff leave data for the past three years indicates that on average correctional
deputies are available for active post assignments for 1,623 hours over the course of a year. The
corresponding staff availability figures for sergeants and lieutenants are 1,855 hours and 1,809 hours
respectively (a detailed analysis of staff availability and its impact upon staffing requirements is
addressed later in this report). Figure 14 summarizes the calculation of required versus funded staff
hours and shows the current budget funds 454,895 hours of staff time, or 33,513 fewer hours of staff
coverage than the level dictated by current posts and operational practices. This shortfall of 33,513
hours from required post work hour requirements compares to 52,323 hours of overtime projected on
an annual basis. Vacancies from funded staffing levels would increase this shortfall and provide upward
pressure on overtime. In our experience, it is normal for a jail system to experience vacancy rates of up
to 5% of authorized staff. The Corrections Bureau appears to maintain somewhat lower vacancy rates.
Figure 14: Current Required vs. Available Hours of Staff Coverage
Captains
Lieutenants
Sergeants
Deputies
Total
Current posts
2014 Funded
positions
2
12
14
155
181
2
12
19
243
274
Work
availability
per position
1,809
1,809
1,855
1,623
Funded work
hours
Post hour
requirements
3,617
21,703
35,242
394,332
454,895
3,617
24,196
35,321
425,273
488,408
Work hour
difference
(2,493)
(79)
(30,941)
(33,513)
This analysis indicates that 33,513 hours of current overtime may be attributable to a disparity between
current operational post requirements and available funding for full-time staff. This leaves a substantial
26
August 25, 2014
portion of overtime attributable to other factors such as operational practices and management
policies.
Inefficient Staff Scheduling
The Corrections Bureau reports that 48 percent of the overtime required to provide minimum staffing
coverage goes to cover absences attributable to vacation or holiday/furlough time. This suggests serious
issues in staff scheduling. As these types of absences are set months in advance of actual leave use,
management should have recourse to manage staff assignments to provide coverage for staff taking
vacation or holiday time. In order for this system of coverage to work, a consistent number of personnel
need to discharge their vacation or holiday/furlough time over the course of the calendar year. For
example, if a single individual is on vacation for a week, the facility will generally have adequate staff to
cover the absence. However, it becomes difficult to cover vacation leave with relief deputies when too
many staff take vacation at the same time, as the need for coverage exceeds the relief personnel
available.
The County’s current contract with the Deputy’s Guild allows 10% of staff to be absent on vacation,
comp, or furlough leave at any given time. County leave data indicates that corrections deputies have,
on average, used 173.4 hours of vacation time per deputy annually over the last three years. The current
2014 vacation schedule has 244 deputies scheduled for 5,936 days off. Allocated evenly throughout the
year, this would correspond to an average of 16.2 deputies allowed off on vacation on any given day, or
approximately 7% of deputy staffing. By contrast, the 10% rule allows up to 24 deputies off on vacation,
eight staff more than an equalized management of vacation time would allow. This level of absence far
exceeds the coverage capabilities of the normal complement of relief staff, and as result forces reliance
upon overtime to provide necessary post coverage.
As a general rule, staff absence reaches this level during periods that personnel prefer to be on vacation
because of good weather, holidays, school vacations, etc. Figure 15 illustrates the difficulty encountered
by granting 10% of the workforce off on vacation at any given time. The 2014 Corrections Bureau
vacation schedule allows the number of staff on leave to reach nearly 25 FTEs in July. This represents
roughly 9 FTEs for the month over and above the normally scheduled number of deputies on vacation.
Assuming this gap must be covered by overtime, the cost in July alone of the 10% vacation policy for
deputy overtime will approach $109 thousand. As the chart shows, this is really only a significant issue in
June, July, and August. A modification to the labor contract allowing management some discretion in
equalizing leave usage through the year would save resources and improve operations.
27
August 25, 2014
Figure 15: 2014 Scheduled Deputy Leave
25
20
15
10
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
RECOMMENDATION: Negotiate a change in the County’s labor contracts to allow more
management discretion in scheduling vacation leave. In the short-term, explore hiring part-time or
per diem deputies that can be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu
of overtime. If permissible under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are
interested in working part-time.
Our analysis shows that current levels of overtime use in the Corrections Bureau are due to a shortfall of
relief staff, labor contracts that hamper efficient scheduling of officers, and a long-term practice of
relying upon overtime to meet minimum operational staffing requirements. However, determining the
degree to which this level of overtime can or should be reduced by adding staff resources requires a
more detailed cost/benefit analysis of the tradeoffs between use of overtime and hiring additional staff.
Overtime Cost/Benefit Analysis
The issue of establishing the most cost-effective means of meeting the Jail System’s manpower
requirements in its simplest terms comes down to a choice between hiring additional staff or relying
upon overtime assigned to current staff. Our analysis shows that due to the salary and benefit structure
for County deputies, relying on overtime is often a more cost-effective strategy than simply hiring new
officers to address staffing requirements. The relatively high level of starting pay for County deputies
results in a comparatively narrow range in salaries between new officers and experienced staff. By
contrast, many jail systems have a lower starting salary, but higher average salary levels. For these
systems, hiring new staff at significantly lower salaries can be much more cost-effective than the use of
overtime for experienced staff. This narrow salary range has the impact of diminishing somewhat the
cost/benefit of hiring new staff to reduce overtime.
28
August 25, 2014
The basic model used by most agencies in evaluating this issue is a straightforward comparison of the
marginal cost of one hour of overtime for current officers versus the fully loaded marginal cost of a
newly hired officer to provide that same hour of work. The basic structure of the comparison is as
follows:
Current deputy hourly overtime cost = Current average deputy hourly salary x overtime rate
New deputy cost = Starting hourly salary x fringe rate
Break-even point = New deputy cost/current deputy hourly overtime cost
Corrections Bureau data indicate that the average corrections deputy makes $96,823 in salary and
benefits annually. After taking out benefits, this equates to an annual salary of $67,005 per year, or
$32.21 per hour. Overtime is paid at a rate of 1.5 times the straight time rate, so the cost for overtime is
approximately $48.32 per hour. The starting cost of a new deputy is $25.12 per hour, or $52,250
annually. Benefits for staff add another 44.5% onto staff costs, which brings the total annual cost of a
new hire to $75,501. The fully loaded hourly cost for a new deputy then becomes $36.30.
Based on these calculations, the marginal cost of an hour of new officer labor ($36.30) is 25% below the
marginal hourly cost of assigning overtime to a current officer ($48.32). In this case, the break-even
point between using overtime versus hiring a new deputy would be 1,563 hours (new deputy cost
/current deputy hourly overtime cost). In this scenario, paying overtime is more cost-effective up to the
point that 1,563 hours of overtime have been incurred. Beyond that point, hiring a new deputy is less
expensive.
However, in actually managing a roster, the cost-effectiveness of either option cannot strictly be
determined by comparing these marginal rates. The analysis must also take into account the amount of
hours required by the post being filled and the number of staff required to work that post. This simply
recognizes the fact that hiring a new deputy does not make that deputy available to avert 2,080 hours of
overtime. Factoring in regular days off, vacation, holiday/furlough time, and sick time all reduce the
availability of a newly hired deputy to avert overtime.
Over the course of a normal work year with regular days off, a newly hired deputy is available for
assignment 260 out of 365 days (5 days per week x 52 weeks). Factoring in leave for 12 holiday/furlough
days, 12 vacation days, and a conservative assumption of 6 sick/family leave days reduces a new
deputy’s availability for assignment over one year by an additional 30 days. As a result, a newly hired
deputy will only be available for duty for 230 days annually, or 63% of the time potentially required for a
full-time post (230 days available/365 days required post duty = 63%). Assuming overtime is distributed
in a relatively uniform manner throughout the year; this means that a newly hired deputy will be
available for assignment to avert regular shift overtime about 63% of the time. In practical terms, this
means that if there are 2,000 hours of overtime incurred on a shift, hiring one new deputy will cover
63% of those hours (1,260 hours), leaving the rest to continue to be covered by overtime by existing
staff.
29
August 25, 2014
In order to determine the break-even point between using overtime and hiring deputies, we need to
factor in both staff availability and the incremental cost of overtime that will still be incurred. Our initial
analysis indicated that if the total hours of overtime on a shift are greater than 1,563 hours, it is more
efficient to hire a new employee. The formula may be written as follows:
Total overtime hours x availability rate > Break-even point (1,563 hours)
By applying an availability rate for the new deputy to the total amount of overtime offered on that shift
in a year, we can adjust for these variables and more accurately identify the break-even point in
overtime hours where it makes more fiscal sense to hire a new employee. Adjusting the formula to
identify the number of overtime hours that represent the break-even point after adjusting for staff
availability simply requires reversing the formula, as shown below:
Break-even point (1,563 hours)/shift availability rate (63%) =
Adjusted break-even point (2,480 hours)
In effect, it takes 2,480 hours of overtime on a shift before a new deputy can avert 1,563 overtime
hours. Therefore, it takes 2,480 hours of overtime to be incurred on a shift before it is more costeffective to hire a new deputy. Since a new deputy can avert or cover only 63% of the overtime offered
on a shift, the balance of the remaining overtime must be picked up by existing staff. This means that at
an average overtime cost of $48.32/hour, $116,884 in overtime on a shift needs to be expended before
it is more cost effective to hire one new deputy.
Figure 16 shows in detail how the hiring of new officers compares with the use of overtime over a range
of different overtime levels. For example, at 3,000 hours of overtime on a shift, hiring two new deputies
would avert no more than 1,890 hours of overtime, leaving the balance of 1,110 hours to be covered in
overtime from existing staff. The resulting total cost of new staff and overtime would be $200,909,
which is $55,949 more expensive than paying all of the overtime to existing staff. Shift overtime has to
reach 5,000 hours before hiring two deputies becomes cost effective. The key point shown here is that it
will always be efficient to rely on some level of overtime to meet staffing requirements.
30
August 25, 2014
Figure 16: Savings from Hiring New Deputies to Cover Shift Overtime
A
B
C
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Amount OT hours
Max hours OT hours
Cost of OT
Cost if all OT
of OT averted by Number available remaining Annual cost
for
Total cost
paid to
Savings/(costs)
hours on new hire of new from new for existing
of new
existing with new
existing from hiring new
(63%)
deputies
staff
a shift
hires
deputies
staff
staff
staff
staff
A x $48.32
A-B
C x $75,701 D x $48.32
A*63%
E+F
H-G
1,000
630
1
1,840
370 $
75,701 $ 17,878 $ 93,579 $
48,320 $
(45,259)
2,000
1,260
1
1,840
740 $
75,701 $ 35,757 $ 111,458 $
96,640 $
(14,818)
3,000
1,890
2
3,680
1,110 $ 151,402 $ 53,635 $ 205,037 $
144,960 $
(60,077)
4,000
2,520
2
3,680
1,480 $ 151,402 $ 71,514 $ 222,916 $
193,280 $
(29,636)
5,000
3,150
2
3,680
1,850 $ 151,402 $ 89,392 $ 240,794 $
241,600 $
806
6,000
3,780
3
5,520
2,220 $ 227,103 $ 107,270 $ 334,373 $
289,920 $
(44,453)
6,576
4,143
2
3,680
2,433 $ 151,402 $ 117,568 $ 268,970 $
317,752 $
48,782
7,000
4,410
3
5,520
2,590 $ 227,103 $ 125,149 $ 352,252 $
338,240 $
(14,012)
8,000
5,040
3
5,520
2,960 $ 227,103 $ 143,027 $ 370,130 $
386,560 $
16,430
9,000
5,670
4
7,360
3,330 $ 302,804 $ 160,906 $ 463,710 $
434,880 $
(28,830)
10,000
6,300
4
7,360
3,700 $ 302,804 $ 178,784 $ 481,588 $
483,200 $
1,612
11,000
6,930
4
7,360
4,070 $ 302,804 $ 196,662 $ 499,466 $
531,520 $
32,054
12,000
7,560
5
9,200
4,440 $ 378,505 $ 214,541 $ 593,046 $
579,840 $
(13,206)
13,000
8,190
5
9,200
4,810 $ 378,505 $ 232,419 $ 610,924 $
628,160 $
17,236
14,000
8,820
5
9,200
5,180 $ 378,505 $ 250,298 $ 628,803 $
676,480 $
47,677
15,000
9,450
6
11,040
5,550 $ 454,206 $ 268,176 $ 722,382 $
724,800 $
2,418
16,000
10,080
6
11,040
5,920 $ 454,206 $ 286,054 $ 740,260 $
773,120 $
32,860
17,000
10,710
7
12,880
6,290 $ 529,907 $ 303,933 $ 833,840 $
821,440 $
(12,400)
18,000
11,340
7
12,880
6,660 $ 529,907 $ 321,811 $ 851,718 $
869,760 $
18,042
19,000
11,970
7
12,880
7,030 $ 529,907 $ 339,690 $ 869,597 $
918,080 $
48,483
20,000
12,600
8
14,720
7,400 $ 605,608 $ 357,568 $ 963,176 $
966,400 $
3,224
31
August 25, 2014
Figure 17 shows the specific break-even levels of overtime where hiring a new deputy becomes more
cost effective than relying on overtime. Overtime must reach 4,973 hours before a second deputy can
be justified. At 19,894 hours of overtime, the most efficient mix of new deputies and overtime would be
to hire eight new deputies and cover 7,361 hours of overtime with existing staff.
Figure 17: Break-Even Points for Hiring New Deputies to Reduce Overtime
Number of
new hire
deputies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Overtime hours
Total shift averted by new
overtime
deputies
2,487
1,567
4,973
3,133
7,460
4,700
9,947
6,267
12,434
7,833
14,920
9,400
17,407
10,966
19,894
12,533
Residual
overtime
worked
920
1,840
2,760
3,680
4,600
5,521
6,441
7,361
Applying this model to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of hiring new deputies versus relying on
overtime requires good data on shift overtime and the specific causes for incurred overtime. Based on
the difficulty experienced during this project in obtaining basic overtime utilization data, current County
data systems do not appear to provide the level of detail required to effectively support this type of
analysis on an ongoing basis. Improved management reporting on overtime utilization is a prerequisite
for better control and understanding of overtime spending.
RECOMMENDATION: Develop a system for collecting data on overtime use and roster
management that identifies the shift, location, pay period, and category of operational need
that drives each hour of overtime incurred. Use this data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
the use of overtime versus additional staff to meet operational requirements.
It must be noted that although this analysis shows that use of overtime can be a more cost-effective
approach to filling a post, the savings must be balanced out against the productivity and human costs
that can be associated with excessive reliance on overtime. Particularly in a job as stressful and
demanding as that of a corrections deputy, routine reliance on staff to work substantial hours beyond
their normal duty can be detrimental to morale and security. As a result, generally recognized best
practices in correctional agencies dictate that permanent fixed posts requiring 24/7 coverage should be
filled with full-time staff, rather than with overtime. The detrimental impact to operations of the
amount of overtime required to permanently staff a full-time position far outweighs the incremental
savings that may achieved by using overtime to cover post requirements.
32
August 25, 2014
Management of Suicidal Inmates
In jail operations with large numbers of commitments and releases that occur 24 hours per day, seven
days per week, it is not unusual to have a significant number of inmates with mental health issues who
often manifest suicidal thoughts and gestures. These inmates require close observation to prevent them
from injuring themselves. The County has a relatively high incidence of inmates that require mental
health observation. A recent assessment of inmates who require mental health services indicated an
ADP of 64 inmates in need of high-intensity mental health services through the first five months of 2014.
To address the need for suicide observation cell capacity, administrators have elected to modify the cell
doors in a number of units with a larger vision panel to facilitate deputy observation of inmates on
suicide watch status. Four cells in Unit 3 North and six cells in Unit 3 South have been converted for this
purpose. The cells are inside the cellblock and are an extended distance from where the deputy is
posted, approximately 40 and 60 feet. The deputy is also behind a security barrier and has limited
capability to listen to the inmate in the cell (Unit 3 North has no audio capability, however in Unit 3
South the deputy can listen to the activities in the cells). Furthermore, the deputy has other duties and
responsibilities in addition to monitoring the potentially suicidal inmates. This approach to monitoring
potentially suicidal inmates is not consistent with best practices.
Most jails manage this function by posting a deputy in close proximity to the suicidal inmate, with few
distractions that would impede the deputy’s ability to provide sight and sound monitoring of the
inmate’s behavior. This approach is not possible in the current housing units designated for housing
inmates with mental health issues. Based on our experience, the Jail System’s current supervision
practices do not allow deputies to most effectively monitor potentially suicidal inmates. This creates
substantial risk for the County. We believe that an alternative to the current practice of monitoring
suicidal inmates/detainees should be immediately explored.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close
supervision due to the threat of suicide. We recommend utilization of Unit 3 South F, which
is a small linear housing unit where a deputy has the capability of directly observing inmates
through their cell doors as well as on a video monitor, as the cells are equipped with
cameras.
Inmate Escort
All inmate movement in the Jail System occurs under deputy escort, typically unrestrained unless the
inmate is considered a threat to security and safety. This includes movement to medical appointments,
visitation, recreation, etc. By policy, all movement from the Main Jail to the New Jail takes place with the
inmates held in restraints. Restraints include a waist chain with handcuffs in front connected to the
chain. When multiple inmates are transported within the jails, a gang chain that connects the inmates to
one another is typically applied. Inmates considered assaultive or particularly dangerous are transported
in full restraints, including leg irons.
33
August 25, 2014
Transportation outside of the jails includes a waist chain with handcuffs in front. Leg irons are applied to
inmates who are leaving the jails’ perimeter. Groups of inmates are chained together utilizing a gang
chain. Transportation to court is accomplished in waist restraints with handcuffs attached to the chain in
front. Leg irons are only applied if the inmate is a threat or when he/she enters the courtroom. The
system used for making inmates available for court proceedings appeared efficient, secure, and wellmanaged.
Escort and supervision of inmates to outside hospital appointments or inpatient admissions takes place
with either one or two deputies assigned to the prisoner depending on the level of risk of the inmate.
Violent offenders or inmates who have a history of being disruptive require two deputies to supervise
the movement. Typically, if an inmate is transported out of the county, two deputies are assigned to
provide security coverage.
Corrections Bureau escort policies and practices generally conform to standard security procedures
found in large jails throughout the United States. However, we did note multiple occasions of male and
female inmates chained together for transport between the Main Jail and the New Jail. Best practices
call for maximum separation of male and female jail inmates at all times.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all
be transported separately.
Roll Call/Pre-Shift Briefing
The current method of passing information from shift to shift takes place on post between the deputy
being relieved and the deputy coming on duty. Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 4–Inmate
Housing, Policy C 505.4.4, Briefing, requires each corrections deputy to review the cluster log in their
respective assignments at the beginning of each tour of duty. The policy further requires that staff
review the bulletin board in staff dining and also check their mail at least once per day for new orders
and information. Beyond these requirements, there is no formal method by which a supervisor can
easily convey information to deputies on their shift.
In many large jail systems, deputies attend a roll call or briefing that provides an opportunity to receive
information about jail activity, briefings on any incidents that have occurred on the previous shift, and
training/guidance from superiors. This process may take place over a 10-15-minute timeframe. An
effective pre-shift briefing accomplishes two primary functions: communication of critical information
and an opportunity for teambuilding.
A number of correctional organizations have done away with the roll call/pre-shift briefing due to the
cost of compensating staff for attending these meetings. At one time attendance was voluntary, but
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, attendance at these meetings must be compensated. Therefore, due
to budget limitations and cutbacks, many correctional organizations have ended the practice.
This trend has led to alternative approaches to address the need for ongoing communication between
shifts. For example, many Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities have replaced pre-shift briefings with a
34
August 25, 2014
supervisor’s conference call, where staff call a number at a particular time from their post and are
briefed by the supervisor. This takes place during the tour of duty, and there is no additional expense
involved. Other jurisdictions use a centrally located video monitor on which staff can view information
posted by their superiors as they are processed into the facility on the way to their post. Some systems
have installed a “pass-on log” on an accessible computer, where vital information is posted and staff
reviews the computerized log when they arrive for duty. These and other similar initiatives are costeffective alternatives to roll call briefings, increasing communication and ensuring that staff receives
appropriate briefings regarding facility activity and information.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost-effective means to provide preshift briefing information through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols.
The current methodology to brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a
daily basis regarding policy/procedure issues and operational matters.
Training
Corrections Bureau in-service training levels have gradually diminished over time. Formerly, a training
deputy was assigned to organize training, develop lesson plans, maintain records and deliver training to
staff at the jails. At the present time, the former training deputy works a regular post in the facility and
is called upon from time to time to conduct training sessions. The deputy estimated that he provides
training services one day per month. Training requirements mandated by the County include weapons
requalification for 8 hours per year and 8 hours of defensive tactics each year, for a total of 16 hours of
training that occurs off post.
In addition, officials have developed online training covering the following topics:
•
•
•
•
Prison Rape Elimination Act
Blood-borne pathogens
Safety
Suicide prevention and risk assessment
Employees log onto a computer to complete these training programs. However, there is no pre- or posttest on the material covered in the session, nor is there any method to prove that the employee
successfully participated in the program. There are plans to increase training going forward, but the lack
of dedicated staff responsible for ensuring that deputies receive mandated training will continue to
impair efforts to improve training.
The near-universal standard for correctional officer training is 40 hours annually per officer, with staff in
special assignments receiving somewhat more. Civilian personnel typically receive 20 hours annually.
The American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities recommends that
after their first year of service employees should receive 40 hours of in-service training annually,
covering—at a minimum—a standardized curriculum that includes the following topics:
35
August 25, 2014
•
•
•
•
Standards of conduct/ethics
Security/safety/fire/medical/emergency procedures
Supervision of offenders including training on sexual abuse and assault
Use of force
In a facility of this size, training should be managed by a minimum of one officer responsible for
organizing the training, developing the curriculum, obtaining feedback from staff on training needs,
developing lesson plans, maintaining records, recruiting subject matter experts to conduct training, and
personally conducting training. In a facility of nearly 300 staff, this can’t be accomplished by a single
part-time training deputy.
Staff development leads to better-trained staff and more qualified personnel completing required tasks.
Training is one of the most effective risk management tools available to correctional administrators.
Providing staff with the best available knowledge on management expectations and how to perform
their duties has a direct correlation to operational performance, particularly in a correctional facility
working environment where issues of security and safety are omnipresent. However, the creation of an
adequate training program will create a need for additional staff or overtime, as it will take staff away
from regular post assignments for the equivalent of one work week per year. The appointment of a
training sergeant for the facility is an important first step in this process.
In order to reach the recognized best practice standard of 40 hours of annual training, each officer
would require 24 additional hours of training. Assuming a roster of 274 security staff (243 corrections
deputies, 19 sergeants, and 12 lieutenants), this equates to 6,576 additional hours of training. Based on
the overtime management model presented earlier in this report, the most cost-effective approach to
covering this additional staff requirement would be to hire two new deputies. These two deputies would
avert 4,143 hours of overtime, leaving 2,433 hours to be covered by overtime. The projected cost of
these new deputies and residual overtime is $264,842, as shown in Figure 18. In addition, creating a
training sergeant position will cost a projected $100,177, assuming entry-level salary and current benefit
levels. Accordingly, the total estimated cost of implementing a basic staff training program that meets
contemporary professional standards is $365,019.
Figure 18: Cost of Increasing Training to Meet 40-Hour Standard
Amount
OT hours
Max hours OT hours
of OT
averted by Number available remaining Annual cost Cost of OT
hours on a new hire of new from new for existing
of new for existing
shift
(63%)
hires
deputies
staff
deputies
staff
A*63%
A-B
C x $73,637 D x $48.32
6,576
4,143
2
3,680
Total cost
with new
staff
E+F
Cost if all
OT paid to Savings/(costs)
existing from hiring new
staff
staff
A x $48.32
H-G
2,433 $ 147,274 $ 117,568 $ 264,842 $ 317,752 $
52,910
RECOMMENDATION: Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in-service training for all
custody staff. In order to develop and support the training program, the Corrections Bureau
36
August 25, 2014
should re-establish the position of training officer. This individual will be responsible for
organizing pre-service and in-service training for eligible employees, and ensure that a quality
training program is in place and delivered. To cover the staff leave associated with an increase in
training, two new deputies should be hired, and an additional overtime cost estimated at
$117,568 will be incurred. In addition, a training sergeant position should be created to develop
and manage the training program. The total cost of the increased in training requirements is
estimated at $365,019. This is an area of significant operational need.
Command Structure
Within the County Sheriff’s Office, the chief administrative officer for the Jail System is the Corrections
Bureau Chief of Corrections. Based on a March 17, 2014 interim organizational chart, jail operations are
managed by two captains that report to the chief. One captain is responsible for the Main Jail, as well as
supervising office assistants and information services, the custody/security operation of the Main Jail,
and the programs/courts lieutenant and his operations.
The second captain is responsible for management of the New Jail and also supervises classification,
programs, pretrial services, and training. Each captain supervises shift commander lieutenants that
manage each shift at their respective jails. Sergeants report to their respective shift commanders. Line
deputies report to sergeants. There are exceptions, as many of the career development staff deputies
report directly to a lieutenant or one of the captains.
This division of responsibility into separate command structures for each of the two facilities was
instituted upon the opening of the New Jail in 2003. The primary rationale offered for the duplicate
command structures is the distance between the two jails and the need to balance workload between
the two captains. We acknowledge that the distance could be an issue under certain conditions;
however, we question the overall benefit of the current organizational structure.
Unity of command is an established principle and best practice in military/paramilitary organizations.
This principle dictates that the command of like operational areas should be the responsibility of a single
individual and not split between commanders of equal rank. Splitting command in this fashion can cause
confusion and lead to fragmentation and duplication in the operation. In the case of the Corrections
Bureau, two captains have divided responsibility for the operation of a moderately sized correctional
facility with a capacity of 1,200 inmates. Command is split between the Main Jail and the New Jail,
although they share many resources and have like functions and responsibilities.
Our assessment indicates that a single captain should manage the operations of both facilities in order
to simplify administration of the Jail System. The current dual command structure requires an
unnecessary captain’s position, complicates communication and implementation of management policy,
and diminishes accountability. As discussed later in this report, we recommend assignment of the
support functions currently managed by the captains to the administrative lieutenant post. This issue is
addressed in more detail in the staffing recommendations described later in this report. Elimination of
one captain’s position will save an estimated $169.3 thousand annually.
37
August 25, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the
New Jail. This will allow for the elimination of one captain.
Use of Technology
The availability of technology to enhance operational efficiency varies throughout the Main Jail and the
New Jail. A summary of key technology systems in use throughout both jail facilities follows:
•
Control Center: The Control Center was constructed as part of the New Jail. There are two deputy
posts assigned to the control room on day and swing shift, and one on night shift, with two
monitoring stations that manage ingress and egress into and within the jails by controlling various
access doors and grill work. Two security electronic panels are monitored on a continuing basis by
the deputies, who lock and unlock doors triggered by a call button adjacent to the doors that the
person requesting entry must depress. The deputy allows access through the doors, assuming the
individuals have authorization to access the facility or units. In addition to the call button, the
deputies can view the individual on one of two video cameras that are strategically placed to
monitor each door. In addition to monitoring door controls, Control Center deputies monitor fire
alarms, ambient alarms (these are alarms that monitor noise levels in the inmate living areas), radio
transmissions, and 342 cameras that are strategically placed throughout the facilities. Cameras are
not located in the cellblocks, but are capable of monitoring the officer station in the Main Jail. There
is no camera coverage in the New Jail dormitories. Control Center deputies also monitor the duress
alarms that each deputy carries.
•
Perimeter: The building envelope serves as the perimeter of the facility, as there is no fencing or
other security barriers. Secure access doors that lead to the outside are closely monitored by control
center staff. Motion alarms are located on the roof, activating when there is movement. Cameras
are also placed strategically on the roof for video monitoring by control room personnel. There are a
few vulnerable areas, especially along the corridor that leads from the Main Jail to the New Jail,
where a single detention-grade door separates the jails from the outside. All exterior doors are
alarmed in the event they are penetrated. Inmates are typically restrained and escorted when
traversing the corridor to ensure safety and security during the movement.
•
Court video hearings: There are two active video court sessions in the County. In the morning, five
days per week, Tacoma Municipal Court conducts arraignments; in the afternoon, Pierce County
District Court conducts its arraignments. All County district court arraignments, which include
domestic violence cases, are arraigned via the video court system. This capability has reduced
transportation of prisoners, as the arraignments take place without having to assign deputies to
transport the prisoners to the courts. Potential also exists to use video court for motion and plea
hearing sessions in the district court. These sessions currently require inmates to be transported in
person to meet with attorneys, prosecutors, and court officials regarding potential pleas. While this
offers some opportunity for expanded use of video court, defense attorneys have argued that video
sessions do not provide sufficient access to their clients to negotiate with the court on their behalf.
38
August 25, 2014
If logistical arrangements can be made to better facilitate attorney/client communication in the
context of these plea sessions, use of video court sessions could be expanded to further reduce
escorts of inmates from the jails to the courts.
Finally, Pierce County Superior Court does not use video court for arraignments. Cases in superior
court tend to be more complex and involve more serious offenses, leading to some reluctance on
the part of the court to move away from traditional in-person court appearances by inmates.
However, many large court systems in Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and
California use video court for felony proceedings without problems.
RECOMMENDATION: Enter into discussions with the courts regarding the potential expansion of
video hearings for district court motion and plea hearing sessions and superior court
arraignments.
•
Officer/deputy safety: The County has invested in two-way radio communications, with each deputy
assigned a radio for their own personal use. Additionally, body or duress alarms have been
purchased and are available to enhance staff safety. When the alarm is triggered, the control center
receives the alarm and staff deploys to respond. The investment in radios and duress alarms
significantly enhances officer safety.
The project team did note two areas of concern with regard to officer safety. Apparently, due to
funding issues at the time of the New Jail’s construction, cameras were not placed inside the inmate
living areas in either the New Jail or Main Jail to monitor inmate behavior and activity. Cameras in
these locations would allow Control Center personnel to observe staff when interacting with
inmates at all times. In a facility with 342 cameras, the lack of any video observation inside inmate
living areas or cellblocks is a serious defect.
RECOMMENDATION: Develop a long-range plan to augment the current camera surveillance
system with cameras installed in inmate housing areas.
An additional area where technology would enhance officer safety is at the entrance to Main Jail
cellblocks from the officer station. The doors that lead into the cellblocks are keyed doors and the
deputy enters each cellblock carrying the keys that open the cellblock door, as well as all of the
adjacent cellblock doors within the cluster. This practice places officers at risk and is inconsistent
with best practices. In the event the deputy is overtaken, the inmates would have access to the
officer station, as well as the adjacent cellblocks. This is especially a concern in Unit 4 East, where
there are vulnerable populations such as protective custody inmates, juveniles, and females. An
ideal technology solution to this issue would establish electronic control of the doors leading into
the cellblocks, eliminating the need for the deputy to carry the key leading into the cellblock from
the officer’s station. An alternative way to approach this issue would be to require a second officer
assigned to all of these posts, allowing one officer to carry the key while the other one makes
rounds inside the living unit. We estimate that this approach would require establishing 19 new
posts, staffed by 34 deputies. The long-term operational cost of this approach would far exceed the
39
August 25, 2014
expense of a well-planned security electronics upgrade that would allow remote control of these
doors.
RECOMMENDATION: Develop a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security
electronics to control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating
the need to carry cellblock keys into the living units.
•
Video visitation: This technology, while not currently in use in the County, should receive
consideration for future use. Video visitation systems use simple kiosks installed in the housing unit,
equipped with video screens and cameras, to provide scheduled access to web-based video visits
with approved visitors. The systems increase the safety of the staff and inmates within the facility
and can provide inmates with more frequent contact with their loved ones. Moreover, many
systems, such as King County, have funded the installation of video visitation systems with inmate
commissary revenues with no net cost to County general funds. Installation of a video visitation
system would eliminate one visitation deputy post in the Main Jail and would reduce the workload
of the remaining reception desk deputies.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of
video visitation systems to supplant current visiting systems in the jails.
In summary, the camera system and security electronics that were installed during the New Jail
construction have positively impacted facility safety and security. Door controls throughout the jail are
equipped with cameras and intercoms, thus allowing control center personnel to provide access under
conditions where they have visibility of those attempting to enter. The purchase of radios and duress
alarms provide for good communication capability and alerts for emergencies.
The technological systems purchased and installed since 2003 have improved security and safety in the
institution, but had limited impact on reducing costs at this time, with the exception of video court
hearings. Video court arraignments have reduced court escorts and the need for additional deputies to
transport inmates to court. The availability of video technology could prove to be helpful in improving
surveillance of inmates threatening suicide, who need to be monitored closely. If Unit 3 South (F) is used
for monitoring suicidal inmates, this can be accomplished with one officer assigned to the cellblock,
which contains 12 cells, because the inmates in those cells can be observed on the video monitors as the
cells are equipped with cameras.
Security Policies
The Pierce County Corrections Bureau Policy Manual is an extensive set of policy statements and
procedures that guide the operation of the Jail System. The current manual appears to have been
developed in 2003, revised in 2009, and subsequently reissued in 2010. Most recently, a number of
revised policies were issued in January, 2013. The manual is organized with a chapter or topic area that
contains policy and procedure for the numerous components that fall within the topic area. The manual
addresses the following topics:
40
August 25, 2014
•
Title 1–Table of Contents: In addition to the table of contents, this title section includes the facility’s
mission statement.
•
Title 2–Booking and Release: This title section includes chapters addressing the management of
new detainees and those being released into the community. Chapter sections include procedures
for conducting searches, handling property, lodging warrants, booking procedures, release
procedures, jail-alternative programs, computation of release dates, and sex offender registration.
•
Title 3–Classification: This title section includes chapters on the classification of inmates, inmate
privileges, program eligibility, inmate workers, inmate discipline, grievance procedure, and
disciplinary appeals.
•
Title 4–Inmate Housing: This title section addresses inmate housing areas and describes the
operation of the various inmate living units. This title section also contains the post orders to guide
the deputies regarding their duties and responsibilities on the various job posts. It should be noted
that a partial revision to this policy was issued in January 2013; however, it is not clear if the 2010
version of Title Four has been overridden by the issuance of the 2013 policy. The 2013 version does
not include detailed descriptions of the housing units/living areas, nor does it include the deputy
post orders, and post orders can’t be located in other documents.
•
Title 5–Reception, Public Access and Visiting: This title section outlines policy and procedures that
guide the operation of the visitation program, procedures for entering the institution, placing
money in inmate accounts, acceptance and release of items, and professional visitation by attorneys
and other professional staff.
•
Title 6–Security and Control: This title section outlines policy and procedure for the operation of the
security program, which includes operation of Central Control, sallyport access, security electronics,
searches, management of contraband, the inmate count system, locking systems, use of force and
restraints, use of eye bolts, and protective gear.
•
Title 7–Inmate Services: This title section outlines services provided to inmates, including food
service, commissary, clothing, housekeeping, unit inspections, waste removal, and inmate
correspondence.
•
Title 8–Inmate Programs: This title section outlines procedures for inmate outdoor recreation,
programs, and library services.
•
Title 9–Fire Prevention, Fire Safety, and Evacuation Routes: This title section addresses fire
prevention, fire safety, emergency evacuation, fire detection, firefighting equipment, and the
sprinkler system.
41
August 25, 2014
•
Title 10–Inmate Escort: This title section addresses procedures for escorting and restraining inmates
as they attend outside activities (court, funerals, etc.), for transport to hospital clinics, and outside
hospital supervision.
•
Title 11–Inmate Health Care Services: This title section addresses the provision of health care to
inmates and procedures for administering medication, emergency medical services, hunger strikes,
and infectious disease.
•
Title 12–Emergency Procedures: This title section addresses emergency response and the
management of emergencies in the Jail System. Procedures include emergency communications,
hostage management, bomb threats, escapes, loss of power, natural disasters, control of firearms
and weapons, fire and safety, management of riots, suicide procedures, alarm systems, and
responding to duress alarms.
•
Title 13 – Exposure Protocol and Safety Procedures: This title section addresses exposure protocols
and policy/procedures to address communicable disease outbreaks. Furthermore, the chapters
include policy on barber tools, pest control, and maintenance.
Policy manuals for the operation of jails are typically written to be consistent with nationally accepted
standards for the operation of jails published by the American Correctional Association (ACA). The ACA
standards that are relevant to the operation of jails are the Performance Based Standards for Adult Local
Detention Facilities, Fourth Edition. It is important to note that the Pierce County Corrections Bureau
Policy Manual is an extremely thorough document, which includes detailed procedures for the
operation of the facility. Although an audit of ACA standards compliance was not conducted with
respect to County policies, generally speaking, the County’s policies are consistent with best practices
based on our experience. There are a few areas where modifications could be made to strengthen the
policies and procedures and jail operations in general, as noted below:
•
Post orders: The 2013 revision that was made to the housing policy, Title 4–Inmate Housing, does
not include a detailed description of the housing units or deputy post orders. Post orders are
documents that describe the duties and responsibilities of a deputy working a security post at the
jails. They are critical elements of the security program that guide the performance of the staff
assigned to supervise the inmate living units, as well as other critical security posts. The post orders
also should include the hours of duty that the post is to be manned and should be based on the
policies and procedures in effect for the facility. Each set of post orders should contain a
chronological listing of activities to be performed on the post. Many jurisdictions provide additional
detail in the post orders that includes excerpts from critical security policies that staff should
familiarize themselves with on a regular basis. The post orders often include requirements for
documentation by the officer/deputy working the post. The post orders should be available at the
job location and a process should be in place to ensure that the deputy reviews the orders on a
monthly basis and signs a document indicating that the procedure has been read and is understood.
Post orders should be available at every post throughout the facility.
42
August 25, 2014
•
Tool control: In reviewing security policies and procedures, a policy statement and procedures for
the control of tools in the institution could not be located. Tool control is an important element of a
security program in a correctional facility or jail, and a program for tool control should be in place. A
tool control policy should include procedures for inventorying and managing tools and maintenance
supplies to ensure that no tool is left in the institution unaccounted for. Such systems typically
include etching and inventorying of tools, as well as a continuous audit to ensure that tools are not
in the possession of inmates, as tools can be an effective weapon and escape implement. We
understand that County maintenance personnel maintain most facility tools outside the perimeter.
Regardless, when they enter the institution there should be an inventory that security staff can
check to ensure that the tools that enter the institution also leave the institution with the worker
once the work is completed.
•
Use of force: Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 6–Security and Control, Policy Statement 6.11,
Force and Restraints, outlines procedures for the use of force and application of restraints. The
elements of the policy do not include a process for after-action analysis of the use of force.
Furthermore, the policy does not address the amount of force that can be used and under what
circumstances force can be used. The policy also contains no provisions for counseling, training, and
possibly discipline to ensure that situations where excessive force is used are addressed
appropriately. Furthermore, use of force procedures should be detailed enough to give guidance to
staff on how much force to use in certain situations. Many jurisdictions develop what is known as a
“continuum of force” document, which gives staff guidance on when to use force and how much
force is appropriate for the situation.
•
Training: Training staff in security policies and procedures, including ongoing training in emergency
procedures, is important to ensure the staff has the competencies required to perform their jobs.
With the exception of firearms and defensive tactics, there is little training for staff that takes place
on operational policies and procedures. As described earlier in this report, we strongly recommend
that the County invest in training of Jail System staff in security policies and procedures. Policy
should recognize the industry standard of 40 hours of mandatory annual training for deputies.
•
Policy updates: The updating of policies and procedures should be a continuous process that is
conducted annually. The policies we reviewed were mostly from 2010, with a few newer policies
that were issued in 2013. We recommend that Jail System officials continue the process of reviewing
and updating policies, with a goal of reviewing and updating each policy on an annual basis.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the policy manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post
orders, tool control, use of force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update
of the policy manual.
Medical Contract Issues
The County entered into a contract this year with Conmed for delivery of health care services at the jails.
The contract, as described to the project team, is a “cost-plus” contract, in that the vendor is reimbursed
43
August 25, 2014
at a specific rate that includes actual costs for staff and services provided plus an amount to cover
vendor overhead and profit. Cost-plus contracts are generally used in systems where costs are welldefined/fixed, with little opportunity for cost savings. The contract does include incentives for the
vendor to reduce outside medical and hospital care. One of the primary benefits of the contract is that
the county minimizes its risk for escalating health care costs by shifting responsibility for management of
those risks to the vendor, who has very specific expertise in correctional health care management.
The decision to contract for correctional health care is fundamentally a search for contractual
accountability to consistently deliver an acceptable standard of health care at an acceptable price over a
defined time period. The contracting solutions that provide the best value to clients are those that
demonstrate long-term viability by balancing cost containment and risk/liability provisions with
adequate provider payments. Counties can achieve health care cost containment through the use of
contract terms that place the vendor at risk of losing money if costs exceed a certain level, or conversely
provide an opportunity to increase profits if expenditures are reduced. Such terms are more likely to
encourage cost-effective management of correctional health care services. Counties can also achieve
savings by allowing vendors to leverage their knowledge and expertise in the delivery of correctional
health care services through the design of alternative, cost-effective staffing patterns and service
delivery models. In a competitive bidding environment the ability to achieve cost savings will result in
lower bids to the County for services.
Examples of potential future request for proposal (RFP)/contract changes that could more effectively
contain costs include the following:
•
In structuring the RFP, all vendors should be required to bid the same staffing plan, but then be
allowed to propose alternative staffing patterns to meet required service levels. The current medical
staffing pattern appears adequate, but vendors with extensive expertise in managing correctional
health care services may have different approaches that could generate staff savings. Accordingly,
the County should require a bid on current staffing patterns, but also request alternative staffing
plans proposed by vendors tied to specific benchmarks of service.
•
In terms of managing risk, there are certain costs for HIV, hepatitis C, and other treatments the
County needs to take responsibility to pay outside of the vendor contract. These costs can be very
unpredictable and can result in vendors building in a risk premium for these potential costs. RFPs
that provide the most savings assign vendor risk to those areas that are relatively predictable and
where vendor experience/expertise can yield savings. By carving out these types of exceptional
costs from the contract, the County allocates risk for vendors away from unpredictable care events,
and toward routine types of care that are more amenable to cost control management. The County
shares in the risk and helps lower the cost of the contract by assuming responsibility for high-cost,
unpredictable cases.
•
Adjust the contract staff reimbursement process. Most contracts call for payment to the vendor on
the basis that 100% of contract staff hours are provided each month. However, due to staff
44
August 25, 2014
vacancies, hiring lag, vacations, and other types of days off, vendors typically never provide 100% of
contract hours, thus requiring an extensive reconciliation process every month. A simpler process
would recognize these vacancies up front and reimburse vendors at a rate of 90% of contract hours.
This process decreases upfront payments to vendors by contract term, instead of as a byproduct of a
monthly reconciliation process, which currently imposes administrative burdens on both vendor and
County staff. The end result would be reduced up-front payments by the County, and reduced
overhead for both sides used to perform and manage the reconciliations and audit functions.
The County has projected a savings of approximately $832,550 for 2014 and is projecting a savings of
$1,296,800 in 2015 attributable to this contract. Overall, the approach the County has taken on health
care privatization appears cost effective while meeting the health care requirements for the Pierce
County Jail.
Jail Governance
Most local jail and detention facilities in the United States operate under the authority of, and are
managed by, sheriffs’ offices. Parameters for the oversight of detention facilities typically are dictated by
state statute, which define sheriff’s office duties as including management of county detention facilities.
Such statutes also generally include provisions by which a sheriff may relinquish responsibility for
detention management to the county. Examples of local corrections departments managed under the
direct authority of county executive or legislative agencies include King County, Washington; Santa Clara
County, California; and Broward County, Florida.
The project team has worked with four large local jails managed as county agencies (King County,
Washington; Santa Clara County, California; San Juan County, New Mexico; and the New York City
Department of Corrections), as well as a large number of jails managed directly by sheriffs. Based on our
experience, we note the following distinctions in these different approaches to jail governance:
•
•
Jails managed by a sheriff’s office often serve as entry points into law enforcement. Many
sheriffs’ departments offer promotional opportunities for jail staff who wish to enter law
enforcement. This often provides an effective incentive for recruiting individuals to work in the
jail. This can be a significant benefit to systems that have difficulty in recruiting and hiring jail
staff. However, the Corrections Bureau has historically experienced little problem in filling
vacancies. The level of staff compensation and benefits already provides significant recruiting
inducements. As a result, the potential for career advancement into law enforcement probably
provides little direct benefit for the Corrections Bureau.
Jails also provide job assignment opportunities for senior police officers nearing the end of their
careers, who may wish to move from law enforcement patrol to potentially less physically
demanding work. The management of jails by sheriffs’ offices facilitates these types of career
moves.
45
August 25, 2014
•
Administrative support of jail operations can be made more efficient in a sheriff’s office. As standalone agencies, jail departments must maintain full administrative departments, including budget
management, procurement, human resources, planning and other related functions. As part of a
sheriff’s office, these functions are centrally organized under the sheriff and then made available to
support jail operations. As a result, managing jail systems as county agencies may somewhat
increase administrative staffing levels and cost in total.
•
Vesting the sheriff with responsibility for jail management provides an additional liability buffer for a
county. Both legally and politically, many counties prefer that the sheriff maintain responsibility for
jail issues.
•
Jail administrators often prefer to be placed organizationally under sheriffs. They believe that law
enforcement professionals have a better understanding of jail operational needs and issues, and
that as a result, jails receive more attention and better funding than they would as county agencies.
A sheriff advocates for resources for two basic county functions, law enforcement and detention. As
a county agency, a jail must compete with all other local agencies for resources.
•
Counties that have assumed responsibility for jail management have often done so in response to
lawsuits or federal investigations related to jail conditions. In these cases, the sheriff is often viewed
as mismanaging the jail, and the expectation is that county administration will improve jail
performance.
•
County administrators in systems with county governance over jails indicate greater awareness and
knowledge of jail issues and view this as a significant advantage. Whether managed by the sheriff or
not, jail operations is typically one of the largest components of county government staffing and
spending. County administration of jail systems has at least the potential for providing more
transparency and accountability in relating jail funding with a better understanding of operational
challenges.
In summary, there is no clear evidence that points to the superiority of either county or sheriff’s
administration of local jail systems. Instead, factors such as local politics, justice systems trends, local
government administrative infrastructure, and level of jail management professionalism are probably as,
if not more, significant contributors to effective performance than the body responsible for oversight of
the local correctional system. Accordingly, establishing the optimal model for jail governance for a
jurisdiction requires a thorough analysis of the unique circumstances present in the local environment,
as well as an understanding of the specific challenges facing the Jail System. Such an analysis is beyond
the scope of this project. That said, we believe that an evaluation of the most effective approach for
overseeing the County’s Jail System should address the following key issues:
•
Accountability: Does the system of oversight establish clear parameters and direction for jail
management while holding administrators accountable for operations, policies, programs, and
spending decisions?
46
August 25, 2014
•
•
•
•
Transparency: Are policy and operational issues clearly communicated to the public?
Cost-effectiveness: What system provides the most effective oversight and control over spending
and revenue-generating activities?
Support: How can administrative and ancillary functions be provided in the most efficient and
effective manner possible?
Performance: What system provides the most effective support for achievement of jail operational
and program objectives?
In each area, the analysis should assess how the current system either facilitates or impairs achievement
of objectives in these areas. This should be followed by an analysis of how a change in governance
would affect these same issues. The goal of the analysis will be to identify how the current model of jail
governance affects current system performance, both positive and negative. With this information, the
analysis can then address how a change in governance could affect those issues, as well as any other
ancillary benefits or negative impacts that could be produced by a change in governance.
47
August 25, 2014
Capacity Management
The primary challenge of jail capacity management is to align the housing of the inmate population with
available capacity based on risk profile, while maximizing the efficiency and the effectiveness of inmate
supervision. This task requires an effective classification system tied to a facility capacity utilization plan.
Classification
In accordance with the Pierce County Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 3–Classification, Chapter
3.01, Classifications of Inmates, the following classification levels have been established for use at the
County’s Jail System facilities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level 1: High maximum
Level 2: Close custody maximum
Level 3: High medium
Level 4: Medium
Level 5: Medium pre-sentence
Level 6: Minimum
Level 7: Low minimum
Level 8: Very low minimum
The policy’s objective is to ensure that fair and consistent guidelines are used in determining inmates’
housing assignments, and that these decisions are based on the assessed risk and needs of each inmate.
In accordance with the Jail System’s classification plan, inmates of the jails are assigned by the
classification corrections deputy(s) or the jail classification committee to one of the following
classification categories:
•
Maximum security classification (levels 1 and 2): These inmates have been charged with extremely
serious felony crimes, have holds or other pending court action concerning such types of crimes,
display a need for maximum amount of supervision, or have displayed significant disciplinary
problems. Inmates designated as maximum security will be allowed a limited amount of out-of-cell
time and only then under a corrections deputy’s supervision at all times. Maximum security inmates
also will not be allowed to associate with the general inmate population.
By policy, the existence of the following factors will result in an inmate being designated as high risk
and limits his housing and program placements to levels 1 and 2 accordingly:
□
□
□
□
□
□
Escape risks (from secure facility)
Assaultive toward staff/other inmates
Severe emotional or mental problems presenting security concerns
Extremely violent crimes
Continuous and severe disciplinary problems
Those accused or convicted of crimes of high notoriety
48
August 25, 2014
Policy further states that any prisoner, pre-trial or sentenced, that is housed at the jails for a crime
and designated by the courts as aggravated murder 1, two-strike sex offenders, or three-strike
and/or death penalty candidates shall be designated classification level 1 or 2 only. All prisoners
held for murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, murder or attempted murder of a
law enforcement officer, or attempted murder first or second degree shall be designated
classification level 1 or 2 only. High-risk inmates may also include those who have had their life
threatened by other inmates within the facility or who have been identified as suicidal. High-risk
inmates are not eligible for unit worker status. Level 1 and 2 inmates will not be housed in open
dorm units. All of these policy considerations place significant limits on available housing options
and eliminate the use of the New Jail dorms for a significant segment of the population.
•
Medium security classification (levels 3, 4, and 5): Inmates in this classification level include
those sentenced misdemeanants and felons who do not qualify for minimum security and who
do not require a higher level of security. Inmates in the facility awaiting trial or sentencing and
who do not require a higher level of security will be placed in medium security. Medium security
inmates are treated as an escape risk, require a normal amount of staff supervision, are limited
in their out-of-cell movement (requiring continuous supervision), are allowed to participate in
most in-house programs, and are eligible for in-house inmate worker consideration.
Policy requires that pre-sentence inmates, those awaiting conviction and sentencing, shall be
designated as medium security, custody level 5. These inmates are temporarily assigned a
medium security status and may be reclassified as minimum security upon sentencing. This
policy significantly impairs the classification of relatively low-risk offenders to minimum security.
•
Minimum security classification (levels 6, 7, and 8): Minimum security includes inmates with
designated custody levels of 6, 7, or 8. Inmates assigned to a minimum security level (minimum,
low minimum, very low) may be sentenced misdemeanants or selected sentenced felons, except
those who have been convicted of assaultive felony crimes. By policy, inmates assigned
minimum security status must have no holds or other pending court action against them, display
a cooperative attitude toward the staff and the rules and regulations of the facility, and not be
considered an escape risk. Inmates in minimum security status are eligible for inmate worker
and work crew status and are also provided a maximum amount of out-of-cell recreation time.
Northpointe Assessment Process
In 2008, the Corrections Bureau began implementation of an objective classification instrument
developed by Northpointe. The assessment process utilizes a decision tree that evaluates numerous
common factors to determine a security level. The factors included in the decision tree are as follows:
•
•
•
•
Current offense
Prior assaultive offenses
Prior assaultive felony convictions
Escape history
49
August 25, 2014
•
•
•
•
•
Known behavior problems
Three or more prior felonies
Detainer/warrants
Pre-sentence/post-sentence
Family ties and employment
The decision tree evaluates each of these factors in progression which leads to a designation of the
security level. The use of this system has produced a classification mix of the current Jail System
population summarized in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Current Jail System Population by Classification Level
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Numbers
58
82
307
% of Pop.
5.39
7.61
28.51
269
200
80
73
4
4
24.98
18.57
7.43
7.78
0.37
0.37
Figure 20 summarizes the corresponding breakdown of the population by custody level.
Figure 20: Current Jail System Population by Custody Level
Level
1 and 2
3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8
9
Custody level
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Unclassified
Number
140
776
157
4
% of Pop.
13.00%
75.05%
14.58%
0.37%
It is unusual for a jail system of this size to use a nine-level classification instrument. The degree of
complexity and the configuration of multiple small housing units make its use problematic for staff.
There is little difference among the risk presented by offenders within the separate level of each of the
major classification categories of maximum, medium, and minimum. The case reviews clearly indicate
that levels 6, 7, and 8 can be compressed into a single level. A simpler three- or four-level system would
be just as effective at assessing risk and would be simpler to administer.
RECOMMENDATION: Compress the number of security classification levels from the present
nine levels to a system that utilizes three or four levels.
50
August 25, 2014
We also note that the same assessment instruments are used for both males and females. It has been
demonstrated in system after system that female offenders tend to be over-classified if assessed by a
single instrument that has been validated based on a male population. Developing a customized
assessment instrument for females will result in more female offenders classified as minimum security.
RECOMMENDATION: Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female
offenders.
In reviewing the distribution of the Jail System’s population by custody levels, we would expect a higher
percentage of minimum security inmates. Presently, inmates in levels 6, 7, and 8 total about 15% of the
population. This represents the minimum security portion of the Jail System population. Most jail
systems have a minimum security population level of at least 20%. This lower-than-expected proportion
of the population in minimum security may be a result of the Jail System’s policy requirement that all
pre-sentence inmates be placed in medium security or higher classification levels. This is an unusual
requirement, as most systems rely on objective risk assessment evaluations to determine inmate
security levels. The rationale offered by classification staff at the jails is that potential lack of experience
with pre-sentence inmates makes a presumption of medium security a prudent risk assessment.
In order to obtain an understanding of how the classification and assessment process is functioning, we
conducted a case review of the most recently completed classification decisions. We reviewed 60 cases
and the key factors on each case recorded from inmates booked into the system on March 24-25, 2014
with the classification deputies. The results of this review include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prior assault offenses: 14.
None of the cases had prior escape history.
Three or more prior felony cases: 5.
Detainer or outstanding warrant: 6.
Medium security (level 5) required due to pre-sentence status: 22; 18 of these would have been
classified as minimum by classification staff.
Only one case had a departure or override based on other than the mandatory factors noted.
Offense categories included:
□ Murder I: 1
□
DWI: 14
□
□
□
Drug-related charges: 11
Assaultive offenses: 10
Theft/burglary: 11
The resulting classification mix of these 60 cases is noted in Figure 21. Two cases were undetermined as
to final classification.
51
August 25, 2014
Figure 21: Case Review Sample-Classification Profile
Level
Numbers
%
1
1
0.017
2
2
3
3
16
27
4
7
12
5
22
37.9
6
3
5.1
7
7
12
8
0
0
9
0
0
Two cases undetermined
The snapshot showed 38% of cases reviewed would have been classified as minimum security absent
the policy mandating all pre-sentence inmates receive a level 5, medium security classification.
RECOMMENDATION: Remove the mandatory requirement that all pre-sentence inmates remain
in medium security until sentenced. A review of the inmate’s history and circumstances of the
charges and arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre-sentence offenders classified as
appropriate for minimum security housing.
During our review of cases we also noted that discretionary overrides are not utilized to adjust
classification outcomes. The classification deputies rely almost exclusively on the factual information
related to the case and booking information and the result is that overrides based on professional
assessment of special circumstances or professional judgment are seldom exercised. Most systems
experience a normal override rate of 5-15% to address special conditions such as medical, mental
health, protective custody, juvenile, etc.
Our initial assessment is that the Northpointe decision tree is over-classifying the incoming population.
More extensive review and a formal validation test of the decision tree must be completed to determine
whether the indicators are valid. This is critically important to the housing plan decisions, as it is likely
that the system could more fully utilize the vacant dormitory housing in the New Jail and de-activate the
smaller pod units in the Main Jail. Chief Daniels has indicated a request to the National Institute of
Corrections to fund a detailed analysis, and restructuring of the classification instrument is pending.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a formal revalidation and potential restructuring of the
classification instrument to achieve a more normal distribution of the inmate population into
minimum custody.
52
August 25, 2014
Inmate Housing
In order to verify the actual available housing capacity of the Corrections Bureau, we conducted a survey
of all housing areas contained in the Jail System. The data obtained was compared to other existing
reports that had been previously issued by the County and the Sheriff’s office.
The capacity numbers in Figure 22 were identified during on-site visits to the facilities and review of the
pods within each unit. The function and purpose of each of the units was determined through a
combination of a review of existing documents and discussion with the Jail System staff during the
course of the facility reviews. A spreadsheet was developed and the actual occupancy figures for each
unit were recorded based on the actual unit counts as of April 4, 2014.
Figure 22 summarizes both the maximum capacity of each pod within the units and an actual snapshot
count of the pods as of the selected date of April 4, 2014. The table also describes the general purpose
of the unit in terms of the type of inmate housed by gender, custody level, and special needs if
applicable. The accounting of beds as reflected in the following indicates a maximum available capacity
of 1,713 and an actual inmate count of 1,027 as of April 4, 2014.
Figure 22: Corrections Bureau Housing Capacity
Main Jail
3 East-A
Custody level &
special uses
Medium PC
Gender
Male/CPAP
Supervision
Indirect
3 East-B
3 East-C
3 East-D
3 East-E
3 East-F
3 East-G
Medium
Medium
Medium
Closed
PC-Closed
PC-Closed
Male
Male
Male
Male/CPAP
Male/PC
Male/PC
3 East-H
Subtotal:
3 South-A
3 South-B
3 South-C
3 South-D
PC-Closed
Male/PC
Maximum/MH suicide
MHP/suicide
Maximum
Maximum/suicide
Male
Female
Male
Female
Indirect/seg.
Indirect/seg.
Indirect/seg.
Indirect/seg.
3 South-E
3 South-F
Subtotal:
3 West-A
3 West-B
3 West-C
Non-disciplinary seg.
Maximum–closed
Male
Male
Indirect/seg.
Indirect/seg.
Subtotal:
3 North-A
Maximum/suicide
MHP/suicide
Maximum
Medium/MHP
Male
Male
Male
Male
Total
capacity
14
Operational
capacity
14
Count
4/4/14
11
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
16
16
16
3
1
1
16
16
16
3
15
16
16
1
-
Indirect
1
68
10
10
20
10
65
10
10
20
10
59
7
9
12
7
10
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
10
12
72
24
30
30
60
24
30
30
4
39
13
17
18
Indirect
84
30
84
30
48
23
53
August 25, 2014
Main Jail
3 North-B
3 North-C
Subtotal:
4 South-A
4 South-B
4 South-C
Subtotal:
4 West-A
4 West-B
4 West-C
Subtotal:
4 North-A
4 North-B
4 North-C
Subtotal:
4T-A
4T-B
4T-C
4T-D
4T-E
4T-F
Subtotal:
4 East-A
4 East-B
4 East-C
4 East-D
4 East-E
4 East-F
Subtotal:
5 West-A
5 West-B
5 West-C
Custody level &
special uses
Seg/crisis/MHP
Medium/MHP
Gender
Male
Male
Supervision
Indirect
Indirect
Medium
Male
Indirect
Medium/medical
Medium
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Medium
Medium
Inmate workers
Male
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Total
capacity
20
30
80
28
Operational
capacity
20
30
80
28
Count
4/4/14
19
30
72
27
32
30
90
30
29
31
32
30
90
30
29
31
26
29
82
29
27
28
90
28
33
29
90
12
90
28
33
29
90
-
84
27
26
27
80
-
Medium
Medium/medical/AWD
Medium
Male
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Closed
Male
Indirect
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
12
14
14
13
12
77
-
-
Medical/minimum
overflow
Medium
Juveniles
Medium
Female
Male
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
10
10
4
10
10
10
4
10
8
7
1
6
Medium PC
Medium/minimum PC
Male
Male
Indirect
Indirect
Max/medium
Intake
Medium/MHP
Female
Female
Female
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
10
10
54
30
30
30
10
10
54
30
30
30
9
7
38
23
19
30
90
795
90
703
72
574
Subtotal:
MAIN JAIL TOTAL:
54
August 25, 2014
Main Jail
2A
2B
2C
2D
Subtotal:
Custody level & special uses
Minimum/medium
Intake/low tier lower bunk
Medium
Medium/keep separate
Gender
Females
Males
Males
Males
Supervision
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
3A
3B
3C
3D
Subtotal:
4A
4B
4C
Inmate workers
Minimum/medium
Closed
Closed
Males
Males
Males
Males
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Closed
Closed
Closed
Males
Males
Males
Direct
Direct
Direct
4D
Closed
Subtotal:
NEW JAIL TOTAL:
Males
Direct
TOTAL SYSTEM CAPACITY:
Total
capacity
84
84
84
84
336
Operational
capacity
84
84
84
84
336
Count
4/4/14
79
61
78
80
298
84
84
84
84
336
84
84
84
84
84
168
-
77
78
155
-
84
336
1,008
-
-
504
453
1,803
1,207
1,027
Housing units in the Main Jail consist of a variety of housing configurations and include dormitories and
cells. The units with cells also vary in that they have differences in security hardware (doors, locks, etc.)
that limit the uses of the units for specific populations. This combined with the fact that many of the
cell units are dry cells (no plumbing fixtures) further restricts the flexibility of the units in terms of their
use.
This is especially critical given that the Jail System holds females and males plus a select juvenile
population and a large mental health population, along with a number of protective custody offenders.
Sight and sound separation of these populations is difficult to maintain, especially in the units in which
they are housed, such as Housing Unit 4 East. We noted that 4 East C houses juveniles in an open dorm
with open cell bars on the same corridor with adult males who are also housed in open cell-bar dorms.
This practice is not consistent with court rulings in a number of jurisdictions that juvenile offenders must
be housed with sight and sound separation from adult offenders, and as a result creates risk for the
County. Given the very low number of juveniles housed in the Jail System, from six to eight on average,
we believe it should be feasible for the County to secure alternative housing for these juveniles, either in
the County’s juvenile detention center or in an appropriate contract detention facility. This would
substantially mitigate a potential risk for the County and relieve a specific operational challenge in the
Jail System.
55
August 25, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail System. Juveniles
should be housed in the County’s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract
detention facility.
Housing Unit 4 East A also houses female offenders in close proximity to male offenders. The design of
the housing unit makes ongoing supervision virtually impossible. This configuration of populations is a
potential violation of federal PREA standards and presents security issues for staff. In fact, the 172
females housed in the Jail at the time of our review were dispersed among seven different housing
units. Consolidation of the female population to maximize separation from male offenders would
improve security and facilitate potential compliance with PREA. However, it is difficult to determine the
optimal location for this consolidation until a revalidation of the decision tree that is specifically
designed for females is completed. It can be expected the classification levels will shift, and once
completed, a location or locations for consolidation can be made.
The New Jail possesses some of the same advantages and disadvantages of the housing plan of the Main
Jail. It is a modern facility that has excellent supervision sight lines of the units. Each 84-bed unit
consists of open dorms separated by fencing. All of the dorms are dry with common toilet and shower
areas adjacent to the dorms. This configuration limits its usage to minimum and medium security
inmates who can be safely managed in an open dormitory setting.
The County has a high number of units designated for mental health and medical special needs inmates.
Most of these beds are interspersed among general population housing and are based on classification
and custody levels rather than special needs. For example, on the housing plan there are 12 separate
units that are noted as holding inmates designated with mental health issues and/or who are noted as
suicidal. There should be consolidation of most of these offenders into specialized units staffed with
deputies and clinical staff trained to manage mental health offenders.
Based on our reviews of case files and interviews with classification staff, there appears to be a
tendency to increase the custody level of any offender who shows indications of mental health issues.
As a result, the vast majority of the mental health population is housed in the higher security units of the
Main Jail. These units do not facilitate interaction or communication with staff. Housing units in the
New Jail would be very appropriate for a more treatment-oriented approach to management of the
mental health population. King County has had substantial success in improving mental health
treatment for offenders by using this approach. The recommended validation of the classification
instrument can be expected to grade a larger proportion of this population as suitable for New Jail
housing. Also recommended previously, Housing Unit 3 South F should be designated as the centralized
housing unit for close supervision of inmates in suicide watch status.
RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit
with trained staff, pending revalidation of the Jail System’s classification system.
56
August 25, 2014
Within the Main Jail, Housing Units 3 East and 4 East present the greatest challenge in terms of
supervision and housing of the type of offenders presently in the Jail System. These units should be
closed and the offenders relocated to empty beds in the existing jail, while also opening one of the
closed units in the New Jail. This would close 119 beds that would be replaced by an 84-bed unit in the
New Jail and the absorption of the remainder of the population in vacant beds throughout pods in the
Main Jail. The action would eliminate one 24/7 deputy post. This would reduce corrections deputy
staffing by five officers at an estimated savings of $489.3 thousand.
RECOMMENDATION: Close Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail, and open one of the
closed housing units in the New Jail.
Excluding closed units, the Jail System had an operational capacity of 1,207 available beds and a
population count of 1,027 inmates on the day of this review. This corresponds to a utilization level of
85%. About 76% of the 180 beds of vacant operational capacity were in housing designated for special
needs populations, with the remainder scattered through general population housing units, as shown in
Figure 23. This level of available capacity is generally high compared to most large jail systems, but is
consistent with recommended best practices for the ideal amount of surplus capacity that should be
maintained to manage classification issues and population peaks.
Figure 23: Distribution of Available Capacity, April 4, 2014
Female
17%
Other
24%
Mental Health
11%
Medical
7%
Seg
9%
Intake
13%
Max
19%
The existing vacancy rates within the existing units are a result of a combination of issues. These include
the design of the units, the limitations that are placed on some units due to the unit’s design, security
hardware (or lack of), the large percent of special needs offenders (including mental health), and the
classification system that has a larger than normal spread of levels. As these factors are addressed, the
population can be condensed into existing vacant beds and possibly result in unit closures. This final
57
August 25, 2014
decision will need to be deferred until some decision is made on possible restructuring of the
classification levels.
Capacity Overflow Units
At times of high population levels, the Corrections Bureau opens closed housing units to alleviate
population pressures. Typically used for this purpose are Housing Units 3C and 3D in the New Jail
(medium/minimum security capacity of 84 beds each) and 3SF in the Main Jail (maximum security
capacity of 12 beds). These units have no established posts and must be operated entirely with
overtime. In the first quarter of 2014, these units were open for 48 days, creating 144 shifts of overtime.
In order to evaluate the use of overflow housing, we examined system capacity utilization for the month
of February, 2014. During that month, overflow units were opened for 13 out of the 28 days of the
month, housing an ADP of 22 inmates. Because the use of Unit 3SF appears more related to inmate
management/supervision needs as opposed to population pressures (there was significant available
maximum security capacity on each of the four days Unit 3SF was open), we focused our analysis on the
use of Overflow Unit 3D.
We reviewed facility count sheets for each of the nine days in February that Unit 3SF was used. We
identified each housing unit designated for male minimum/medium security inmates and compared the
population count for those days with the capacity level established for each unit. This produced a
measure for vacant minimum and medium security beds available on those specific days. Figure 24
shows the availability of male minimum/medium security capacity for each day in February that Unit 3D
was used for overflow capacity.
Figure 24: Overflow Housing Compared with Available Capacity
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Feb. 1
Feb. 2
Feb. 3
Feb. 4
Unit 3D Count
Feb. 5 Feb. 25 Feb. 26 Feb. 27 Feb. 28
Vacant Med/Min Beds
58
August 25, 2014
The analysis shows that the overflow population exceeded available capacity on only one day during the
period reviewed. On that day, February 1, Unit 3D housed 41 inmates compared to an available male
minimum/medium security capacity of 29 beds. For the rest of the month, available capacity exceeded
the number of inmates in the overflow unit by an average of 24 beds, ranging from a low of 0 on
February 2 to a maximum surplus of 38 beds on February 28.
In interpreting this data, it is important to keep in mind that managing jail system populations becomes
exponentially more difficult as population levels approach capacity limits. The continual movement of
inmates into and out of the system, the need to take into account risk levels and security classifications,
and the very limited options for housing inmates, make decisions on housing placement very difficult as
population levels climb. Moreover, as discussed earlier in this report, efforts to fully utilize available
capacity are hampered by the current classification system, which is excessively complex and prohibits
the housing of pre-trial offenders in minimum security housing units.
Without a more detailed analysis of the population assigned to the overflow unit, it is not possible to
definitively conclude that these offenders could have been housed in available medium and minimum
security capacity. However, the analysis does suggest that throughout the system, there were beds
available that would have made opening the overflow unit unnecessary.
The Corrections Bureau is unique in that an overflow housing option is available to managers. Most
other jail systems do not have closed housing units that may be opened when the need arises. In these
systems, management must typically use temporary beds or “boats” on dayroom floors for housing at
times of peak population levels. This option, which is available to the Corrections Bureau and has been
used in the past, is another alternative to the use of an overflow unit to accommodate temporary peaks
in the Jail System population. Based on our experience with other jail systems, up to 6 temporary beds
could be deployed in most of the medium security units of the Main Jail, and up to 10 temporary beds
could be deployed in each of the housing units of the New Jail. Use of temporary beds in this manner is
not ideal and does increase risk and security issues. However, it is manageable and is an accepted
practice in jail systems throughout the United States.
Other options available to most jail systems in managing crowding include alternative sanction programs
for low-risk offenders. Programs such as electronic monitoring, day reporting, work release, and pre-trial
probation supervision have been proven to be safe, cost-effective alternatives to jail for low-risk
offenders. If the Corrections Bureau’s classification system can be modified to more effectively identify
these types of inmates, development of such programs could potentially lower the Jail System
population to the point that reliance on overflow housing could be eliminated.
This underscores the point that opening the overflow unit is not an automatic function of the Jail System
population increasing. It is a management decision. Jail management made the decision that opening
the overflow unit and incurring the additional overtime costs was a better option than the complexity
and risk associated with attempting to fully utilize readily available capacity or of using temporary beds.
59
August 25, 2014
Staffing Analysis
This section of the report summarizes findings and recommendations derived from our assessment of
the staffing of corrections deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains posts of the Jail System. There
are two major parts to this section of the report, the first being a series of findings and
recommendations regarding the staffing of security posts. The second section addresses the calculation
of the relief factor to ensure proper coverage of the recommended security posts. We summarize our
recommendations in a staffing spreadsheet that documents required posts, calculates relief for those
posts, and produces a recommended staffing complement for the Jail System.
Security Staffing Positions
Staffing levels for uniformed staff members totaled 277 current funded positions as of March 24, 2014.
As Figure 25 shows, the majority of those positions are deputy positions assigned to the various shifts.
There are also a significant number of positions assigned to “career development” posts that are
considered specialty assignments. Most of those positions are assigned to court escort, but there are a
number of positions that perform administrative duties. It is important to note that the balancing of the
day shift, swing shift, and night shift reflects the heavier workload during the shifts when inmates are
awake and active. The effort made by the administrative lieutenant to ensure that each shift is properly
balanced is noteworthy.
Figure 25: Current Security Staffing Summary
Day shift
Swing shift
Night shift
Administration
Career
development
Total
Captains
0
0
0
2
0
2
Lieutenants
3
3
3
3
0
12
Sergeants
5
5
5
0
5
20
Deputies
67
65
55
0
56
243
Total
75
73
63
5
61
277
These 277 staff, in addition to a limited number of civilians, fill 183 specific posts and job assignments
established to support the daily operation of the correctional system. The primary categories for these
posts are command (chief, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants), control/booking, Main Jail housing,
New Jail housing, reception, classification, industries, court escort, and administration. Figure 26
identifies each of these posts, the associated shift the post is active, the work schedule, hours of
coverage, and whether the post requires relief.
60
August 25, 2014
Figure 26: Current Corrections Bureau Posts & Job Assignments
Post/Position
Chief
Captains
Captain-Main Jail
Captain-New Jail
Lieutenants
Admin Lieutenant
Programs Lieutenant
PREA/Medical Lieutenant
Shift Lieutenant-Main Jail
Shift Lieutenant-New Jail
Relief Lieutenant
Sergeants
Classification Sergeant
Courts/IT Sergeant
Courts Sergeant
Records/Release Sergeant
JIP Sergeant
Shift Sergeant-Main Jail
Booking Sergeant-New Jail
Housing Sergeant-New Jail
Corrections Deputies
New Jail
Control Room
Booking
Fingerprints/Photographs
Booking Escort
Release
Housing
2A (84-Bed Dorm)
2B (84-Bed Dorm - Intake)
2C (84-Bed Dorm)
2D (2 - 42 Bed Dorms)
3A (84-Bed Dorm)
3B (84-Bed Dorm)
3C (84-Bed Dorm)
3D (84-Bed Dorm)
4A (84-Bed Dorm)
4B (84-Bed Dorm)
M-F
8 Hour Shifts
10 Hr.
Shifts
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr. 8 Hr.
8 Hr.
Days Swing Graves
10 Hr.
Days
Frequency
Days/
Week
Hours/
Week
1.0
5
40.00
Relief
No
1.0
1.0
5
5
40.00
40.00
No
No
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5
5
5
7
7
7
40.00
40.00
40.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
No
No
No
No
No
No
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
7
7
7
7
7
280.00
504.00
168.00
504.00
392.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
168.00
336.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
61
August 25, 2014
Post/Position
4C (84-Bed Dorm)
4D (84-Bed Dorm)
2nd Floor Escort
3rd Floor Escort
4th Floor Escort
Main Jail
Clinic Security Officer
Escort Officer, 3rd Floor
Escort Officer 4th Floor
Housing
3 South (8 Units / 60 Beds)
3 East (8 Units / 65 Beds)
3 West (4 Units / 90 Beds)
3 North (5 Units / 80 Beds)
4 East (6 Units / 54 Beds)
4-T (6 Units / 77 Beds)
5 West (4 Units / Female Intake)
Reception
Reception - New Jail
Reception-Main Jail
Visitation-Main Jail
Visitation-Main Jail
Classification
Classification Deputy
Industries
Prisoner Work Coordinator
Supply Deputy
Work Crew Deputy
General Maintenance
Court Escort
Court Escort Deputy
Medical Transport Deputy
Low Voltage Deputy
Administration
M-F
8 Hour Shifts
10 Hr.
Shifts
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr. 8 Hr.
8 Hr.
Days Swing Graves
10 Hr.
Days
Days/
Week
Hours/
Week
Relief
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
7
7
7
7
7
280.00
168.00
-
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.4
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
5
7
7
7
55.00
112.00
336.00
560.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
280.00
168.00
280.00
280.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
280.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
7
5
2
112.00
112.00
40.00
16.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
5
112.00
80.00
Yes
Yes
5
5
4
4
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
No
No
No
No
5
5
5
800.00
40.00
40.00
Yes
Yes
No
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
1.0
1.0
Frequency
Yes
Yes
Yes
62
August 25, 2014
Post/Position
Public Disclosure Deputy
Background/Recruiting Deputy
Safety Deputy
Civilians
Office Assistants
Pre-Trial Screener
Pre-Trial Screener
Corrections Tech (Laundry)
Medical Director
Detective Sergeant
Mental Health Manager
Budget Manager
Mental Health Evaluator
Deputy Comptroller Spec.
Accounting Assistant
M-F
8 Hour Shifts
10 Hr.
Shifts
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr. 8 Hr.
8 Hr.
Days Swing Graves
10 Hr.
Days
1.0
1.0
1.0
Days/
Week
5
5
5
5.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
7.0
1.0
3.0
Frequency
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Hours/
Week
40.00
40.00
40.00
Relief
No
No
No
80.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
20.00
40.00
20.00
280.00
40.00
120.00
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
The project team conducted a task analysis of the job duties and workload associated with each post.
The results of this review follow:
Captains
As noted previously, there are two captains assigned as operations captains, one for the Main Jail and
one for the New Jail. Although the facilities are connected, they are managed as independent units. Each
facility has its own captain, with a cadre of shift commanders assigned to each building. Staffing rosters
reflect staffing for the unit only, and they are not combined with the adjacent facility. This arrangement
results in policies and practices being developed for each section of the jails by one of two captains,
based on their individual preferences. In the interests of unity of command, improved communication,
and operational consistency, the facility requires only one operations captain.
RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate one operations captain post, and make the remaining post the
operations captain for the entire Jail System. The new administrative lieutenant (PREA/medical)
post can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other support units within
the organization, reporting to the operations captain.
We also noted that captains are represented by a union and have their own collective bargaining
agreement. This is somewhat unique in our experience. In most jail systems, senior jail administrators
such as captains are considered a key part of management and are treated as managers. The need to
63
August 25, 2014
collectively bargain and establish fixed work rules for senior managers has the potential, at the very
least, to make administration of the Jail System more complex and to make it more difficult to hold
senior managers accountable.
Lieutenants
Consistent with unifying the command structure, the practice of having two lieutenant shift
commanders, one at each facility, is not necessary. A single shift commander can be responsible for both
facilities and have a sufficient number of subordinate sergeants deployed to provide close supervision to
the living and administrative areas. This will eliminate three posts that require relief, which corresponds
to four lieutenants. Consolidating operational responsibility in a single shift lieutenant will increase that
post’s responsibilities. To provide adequate support to the shift commander, we propose creating an
additional sergeant post as described later in this report.
No changes are necessary relative to the administrative, medical/PREA, and programs lieutenant posts.
All serve critical functions.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail
and the New Jail, consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and
should be filled on a 24/7 basis. This will result in the elimination of one 24/7 lieutenant post.
Sergeants
The current deployment of sergeants includes a shift sergeant post in the Main Jail that supervises the
deputies on the housing units. In the New Jail, a booking sergeant supervises the commitment and
release process. Also in the New Jail, a housing sergeant supervises the deputies working the direct
supervision units (at the present time, 6 of the 12 housing units in the New Jail are occupied, thus
requiring only one sergeant to supervise those units). There are currently 15 sergeant positions
allocated to cover these nine posts (three posts on each shift), which all require seven day per week
coverage.
Sergeants assigned to administrative duties include the classification sergeant, courts/IT sergeant, the
courts sergeant, the records/release sergeant, and the jail industries sergeant. All work the
administrative shift, five days per week for 40 hours, with no relief. Each of these posts oversees
important jail functions. However, the courts/IT sergeant performs mostly administrative duties related
to IT. He spends limited time addressing his court responsibilities. There is no reason why information
technology support should be assigned to a sergeant. The existing sergeant and lieutenant assigned to
the Court Escort Unit can continue to manage that unit effectively without the part-time sergeant, who
rarely works in the unit handling court-related matters. The position should be converted to an
administrative civilian title.
RECOMMENDATION: Convert the courts/IT sergeant post to a civilian position with information
technology experience and qualifications.
64
August 25, 2014
Consistent with the creation of a unified command structure with one shift commander, an additional
sergeant post (shift/roster sergeant) is needed to support the shift commander, serve as second in
command, and to manage personnel deployment. This post will also be available to respond to
emergencies, as well as manage certain administrative duties such as drafting reports and procedures.
The shift/roster sergeant will fill a critical role in managing how personnel are assigned, as well as
personnel reassignments that occur during the course of a shift, when needs and workload changes. The
presence of a shift sergeant will free up the shift lieutenant to conduct inspections and provide guidance
to subordinate personnel. The current lieutenants focus much of their time and energy on personnel
deployment, and this hinders their ability to supervise and inspect operations.
RECOMMENDATION: Create a shift/roster sergeant post to provide support for shift
commanders and manage staff deployment.
Our analysis of Main Jail operations indicates a need for an additional sergeant to provide effective
supervision of the housing units. The current unit sergeant for the Main Jail, supervises up to 18
deputies on a shift, as well as the activities of 10 housing units that contain the most disruptive and
difficult inmates This particular sergeant post is responsible for reporting on incidents, making rounds of
each housing cluster, observing high-risk inmates, conducting the disciplinary investigations, relieving
the shift lieutenant for meal breaks, evaluating performance of employees, and responding to
emergencies. A second unit sergeant post on the day and swing shifts, when facility activity is at its
height, is necessary given this level of work and its critical nature. The additional posts will enhance the
quality of staff supervision and security in the Main Jail. The resulting staffing ratio of one sergeant per
nine deputies on days and evening shifts is consistent with best practices.
RECOMMENDATION: Create a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing
shifts, seven days per week, with relief.
The single unit sergeant post assigned to the New Jail is sufficient given the current level of capacity
utilization in that facility. An additional unit sergeant post would only be required upon the opening of
all of the remaining housing units in the New Jail.
Correctional Deputies
Correctional deputies are deployed throughout the Jail System to provide for the safety and security of
the inmate population, staff, and the public. Of the 243 deputies on the roster at the time of this review,
187 work operational posts, performing duties such as housing unit supervision, monitoring security
systems in the control center, booking and processing commitments and releases, supervising inmates
in off-site hospitals, and providing security and supervision to common and service areas. There is also a
large contingent of 56 deputies who are on career development assignments, such as court escort,
reception/visitation, jail industries, supply, maintenance, medical transport, public disclosure, and
safety. Following is our assessment of staffing requirements in each operational area:
65
August 25, 2014
•
Housing unit supervision: Housing deployment practices are provided using two different methods
of inmate supervision. In the Main Jail, housing units are designed for indirect supervision. Deputies
observe inmates through security glazing from their security posts, which are centrally located in a
secure area. In order to make contact with the inmates, the deputy must proceed through a locked
door into the housing unit. Deputies make periodic rounds and wellness checks of inmates on a
schedule described in post orders.
Housing unit deputies are supported by floor escort deputies, who assist the housing unit deputies
when they make rounds, or if they need to respond to an inmate disturbance of some sort. Floor
escort deputies also provide relief for housing unit deputies for their lunch periods and rest breaks
(each deputy, per the union contract, receives a paid 30-minute lunch period and two 15-minute
breaks during their eight-hour tour of duty).
In the indirect supervision Main Jail housing units, staffing varies depending upon the population
housed in the specific unit. Units that house a more difficult inmate population have two deputies
deployed on the day shift and swing shift, with one deputy on the night shift. These units include:
□
□
□
□
Unit 3 South: 60-bed unit housing maximum-security males, special management females, and
potential suicide risks
Unit 3 West: 90-bed unit housing maximum security inmates
Unit 3 North: 80-bed unit housing medium security inmates, suicide risks, and inmates with
significant mental health issues
Unit 5 West: 90-bed unit housing females of various classifications
The remaining units in the Main Jail have one deputy per shift assigned to supervise the living areas.
These units are either smaller or house inmates that are of lesser security risk based on their
classification.
We identified few issues with regard to housing unit staffing in the Main Jail, with one exception.
Unit 3 South is a particularly busy unit that houses maximum security inmates, special housing
females, and inmates in need of close mental health observation. There is an unmanned control
room in the common area outside of the cellblocks, which at times is manned by a deputy on lightduty assignment. This is not an established, funded post. However, our observations of this area
indicated that the workload is high, and the inmate population needs to be closely monitored. This
post should be established and filled on a permanent basis.
RECOMMENDATION: Create a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7
coverage to provide improved supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit.
As noted earlier in our assessment of current issues with the supervision of inmates on suicide
watch, Unit 3 South F offers a much better environment for effective supervision given the layout
and the presence of cameras in the cells. Designating this unit for housing inmates on suicide watch
will require establishing one housing unit post.
66
August 25, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Create a housing unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to
allow effective, centralized supervision on inmates on suicide watch status.
Inmate housing in the New Jail is managed in a direct supervision approach, with 84-bed open
dormitories that currently house medium and minimum custody inmates. The housing units are
open and have good sight lines into the inmate living areas. Unit recreation is only allowed for half
of the unit, or 42 inmates at any one time. The remaining inmates are locked in their dormitories
until it is their time to recreate. The unit bathrooms are somewhat isolated and difficult to view
from the deputy station; however, management has placed mirrors so that the deputy can have
some visibility of that area to enhance supervision. With the exception of Unit 2B, staffing in all New
Jail housing units is one deputy 24/7. Unit 2B is the Jail System’s intake unit and houses all newly
arrived inmates. Two deputies are assigned to this unit on a 24/7 basis.
As described earlier in this report, we recommend closing Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the
Main Jail and opening an additional housing unit in the New Jail to better manage this population.
This action would eliminate two 24/7 housing units posts in the Main Jail and add one 24/7 housing
unit post in the New Jail. The net impact would be a reduction of 5.4 FTEs, with a net savings of
$538.3 thousand.
•
Court/medical escort: The 25 deputies assigned to court escort both transport inmates to
County courtrooms and supervise them during their proceedings. The unit averages 37,000
transports per year. There are 22 superior court judges, 4 Tacoma municipal judges, and 6
district court judges that receive inmates from the Jail System. The superior court arraignment
session (court 260/270) requires five deputies to supervise operations, which includes a large
holding area that contains seven multiple occupancy holding cells. Deputies are also assigned to
the following courts and assignments that require inmate escorts:
□
□
□
□
□
□
Tacoma Municipal Court: Two deputies each morning
Outside medical appointments: One deputy as needed
250 Court: Three deputies that also supervise two multiple occupancy holding cells
District and video court: Two deputies
Drug court: Two deputies
Trials: as many as 11 deputies assigned as needed throughout the court building
In addition, one deputy is assigned to dispatch, receives calls during the day, and redeploys
personnel as needed. The sergeant and lieutenant provide supervision and routinely make visits
to the courts to supervise and troubleshoot operations.
Based on our experience with court escort operations in other jail systems, the number of
deputies assigned to this function is appropriate given the volume of work, scope of authority,
and variety of tasks for which staff are responsible. As discussed previously, the best
opportunity to reduce the number of deputies assigned to this function would be to expand the
use of video court for superior court arraignments and for district court plea agreements.
67
August 25, 2014
•
Career development deputies: We reviewed all of the career development posts, which
included posts in areas such as classification, reception, industries, and safety, as well as posts
already addressed in this report, such as court escort. This section of the report addresses the
following career development posts:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Background/recruiting deputy
Clinic security deputy
Public disclosure deputy
Work crew deputy
Supply deputy
Safety deputy
Release deputies (11)
Reception deputies (7)
Prisoner worker coordinator
Medical transport deputy
General maintenance deputy
Low voltage deputy
Classification deputies (5)
Most of these posts require specialized skills and play an important role in the operation of the
Jail System; however, we noted several posts that do not appear to require correctional security
training or experience. The low voltage deputy and the general maintenance deputy do not
necessarily supervise inmates, but instead perform maintenance functions throughout the
institution. The supply deputy handles ordering and issues supplies to the housing units. The
public disclosure deputy performs administrative work maintaining records. These functions,
while important, do not require the skills or training of a corrections deputy. The County should
hire qualified civilian staff to perform these functions and utilize the sworn deputy staff for
security and inmate supervision functions. This would result in better use of correctional
deputies and allow these support functions to be performed by less expensive staff. Including
the conversion of the court/IT sergeant position to an appropriate civilian title, as recommended
earlier in this report, changing these posts to civilian assignments would save the County an
estimated $182,801. Figure 27 summarizes the savings realized from this recommendation.
68
August 25, 2014
Figure 27: Civilian Conversion Savings
Title
Post
Annual cost
Projected
annual cost
Target title
Correctional sergeant
$
Low voltage
Corrections deputy
$
97,862
Facilities maintenance technician
General maintenance
Corrections deputy
$
97,862
Supply
Corrections deputy
$
Public disclosure
Total
Corrections deputy
$
$
Courts/IT sergeant
121,727 Computer systems business analyst I $
Savings
75,891
$
45,835
$
60,833
$
37,029
Facilities maintenance technician
$
60,833
$
37,029
97,862
Facilities supplies specialist
$
61,825
$
36,037
97,862
415,314
Administrative assistant
$
$
70,992
259,383
$ 26,870
$ 182,801
RECOMMENDATION: Convert the low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public
disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related
experience and qualifications.
•
Transports for Outside Health Care Services: In 2013 there were 866 documented transports of
inmates to “outside health care services.” This number includes 125 referrals to the emergency
room that did not result in the inmate being admitted, 40 referrals to the emergency room
where the inmate was admitted to the hospital, 672 referrals to specialists (non-surgical), and
29 surgical referrals to specialists. The number of transports is largely a function of the number
of inmates housed at the jails. To the extent that the ADP is projected to decline slightly in 2014,
the number of these trips should decline as well. The new medical contract should have no
impact on the number of trips for outside care.
Transports to the emergency room can happen at any time of the day, any day of the week.
With 165 emergency room transports in 2013, the average number of trips was 3.2 per week, or
about once every other day. Specialist referrals are typically scheduled in advance during
business hours Monday through Friday. There were 701 inmate transports for specialist services
in 2013. This is an average of 13.5 transports each week, or about 2.7 transports each weekday.
In addition, staff transported 324 inmates to the Western State Hospital (WSH) for mental
health treatment. This was an average of 6.2 transports to WSH each week, or about 1.2
transports each weekday. Figure 28 summarizes these transports.
Figure 28: 2013 Inmate Transports for Outside Health Care Services
Total emergency room (ER) referrals
ER referral (non-admitted)
ER referral (admitted)
2013 Total
Avg./week
165
125
40
3.2
2.4
0.8
Avg./day
0.5
0.3
0.1
69
August 25, 2014
2013 Total
Avg./week
Total specialist referrals
Specialist referral (non-surgical)
Specialist referral (surgical)
701
672
29
13.5
13.5
13.5
2.7
2.7
2.7
Mental Health Transport to WSH
324
6.2
1.2
1,190
22.9
4.6
Total outside services/WSH
Avg./day
The Corrections Bureau has one medical transport deputy post to manage these escorts. When
this deputy is unable to work due to vacation or sickness, the position must be covered with
overtime staff or reassigned deputies from the court escort detail. Through the first five months
of 2014, this post required 25.8 hours of overtime support.
•
Hospital supervision: Inmates admitted to the hospital for medical care must be supervised
24/7 by correctional deputies. For the period October 1, 2013 to May 25, 2014, this duty had
required 2,669.7 hours of overtime. This level of activity annualizes to a projected 4,083.1 hours
of overtime for hospital supervision duty, or 1,361 hours overtime per shift. As shown earlier in
our analysis of overtime, roughly 2,500 hours of overtime per shift needs to be incurred to make
hiring additional staff cost effective. Accordingly, the most efficient way to staff this function is
with overtime.
•
Light-duty assignments: Jail System security staff of all ranks may be subject to injury on duty or
have an accident off the job. Because of the nature of the work, there are certain job
requirements that have to be met, and the staff member has to be physically able to perform
the tasks and job assignments associated with the position. When staff are injured, they can be
off duty receiving compensation under a workers compensation program or discharge benefit
leave. Their absence from duty reduces the number of available personnel to perform the job
and is reflected in the relief factor.
The County offers staff with health issues or physical impairments the ability to return to work
on what is known as a “light-duty assignment.” These duties typically have limited or no direct
contact with inmates. For example, staff restricted to light duty may be assigned to the central
control post, where their duties are not physically demanding and they have no contact with
inmates.
At the time of this review, the Corrections Bureau had 17 deputies on light-duty status. Because
the opportunities for light duty in regularly assigned posts are limited, management often
assigns these deputies to “unofficial” posts that are not funded in the budget and that do not
appear on the roster. One of these posts is the 3 South control, which is currently not a funded
post. Other posts that staff can be assigned to are supply assistant, administration/mail, and
trustee coordinator. The reported practice of the Corrections Bureau is to offer these light-duty
70
August 25, 2014
assignments to staff for up to one year. At the end of the year they are required to either return
to regular duty or terminate employment. This is a very long period of time to offer light-duty
assignments, which contributes to the relatively large number of staff in this status. Restricting
the amount of time on light duty to six months is consistent with the practice of most jail
systems and would significantly reduce the number of deputies who must receive light-duty
assignments. Our prior recommendation to staff the 3 South control post 24/7 will also create
six additional light-duty posts. These two actions should balance the number of staff on light
duty with available, funded posts.
RECOMMENDATION: Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light duty post
to six months, thereby reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable level.
Shift Relief Factor
The shift relief factor is critical in determining staffing of Jail System operations, which are typically 24/7
functions.
“The shift relief factor is defined as the number of full-time equivalent positions needed to fill a relief post
(one that is covered on a continual basis) for a single shift. The shift relief factor is multiplied by the
number of staff assigned to a specific post to determine the number of staff necessary to provide for that
post.” 1
In determining the shift relief factor, the number of hours a post must be filled is calculated. In the case
of a seven-day, eight-hour post, a single employee typically works a five-day week, leaving two days,
known as “regular days off” (RDO), that the employees are not present. Additionally, the typical
employee is absent for other reasons, such as discharging sick leave, vacation, military leave, family
medical leave, leave without pay, training, and workers compensation. Additionally, in the correctional
environment, staff are typically absent to attend training programs as well. The total amount of hours
unavailable for assignment is further deducted from the employee’s availability for work.
Examples of this calculation for 24/7 posts are as follows: The number of hours the post is required to be
filled in a year is 8,760 hours (calculated by multiplying 24 hours per day times 365 days per year). The
number of hours an employee is available to work begins with 2,086 hours of availability (40 hours per
week X 52.14 weeks equals 2,085.6). Staff availability is reduced by the number of hours the individual is
not available to work for the reasons cited above. This results in a calculation of net annual work hours
(NAWH), which is the number of hours staff are employed to work, minus the average number of hours
that person is unavailable. It is critical when making the calculation of net annual work hours that all the
time is accounted for in the calculations.
1
Camille Camp, George Camp, Hardyman, and May, Prison Staffing Analysis, A Training Manual, National
Institute of Corrections, December 2008
71
August 25, 2014
With calculation of NAWH, the relief factor can be derived by dividing the number of hours per year that
a post must be staffed by the number of hours one deputy is available to work in a year. Staffing
requirements then are determined by multiplying each post by the required relief factor.
The Corrections Bureau uses a relief factor of 1.74 for an 8-hour post, seven days per week. Staffing the
one post on a 24/7 basis should require 5.22 deputies (1.74 x three [3] shifts). We recalculated the relief
factor based on the most recent three years of leave data available from the County. For the purposes of
this analysis, we have assumed training remains at the historical level of 16 hours annually per deputy.
Figure 29 shows a summary of the calculation of NAWH for lieutenants, sergeants, and deputies.
Figure 29: Net Annual Work Hour Calculation
Job classification
2,085.60
76.35
0.81
135.34
45.66
11.29
2,085.60
65.71
1.64
114.40
46.65
0.02
Corrections
deputy
2,085.60
113.48
2.91
173.40
83.13
0.17
7.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.84
1.44
16.00
2.29
8.85
28.33
0.00
293.02
1,808.58
0.00
246.73
1,854.87
0.00
462.83
1,622.77
Lieutenant
Total hours contracted per employee per year*
Sick and family leave
Bereavement time
Vacation time
Holiday/furlough
Comp time
Military leave
Jury duty time
Training time
Catastrophic leave
L&I
Suspension/LWOP/ADLV
Other
Total hours off per employee per year
Net annual work hours
Sergeant
*40 hours per week times 52.14 weeks in a year
The data used in this analysis point to several issues for Corrections Bureau management:
•
•
•
•
Deputies use on average over 14 sick/family leave days per year. This is one of the highest levels of
sick time use we have seen.
The level of suspension time is also extraordinarily high.
The level of military leave for deputies is also high. While this may be a function of the large military
presence in the County, the fact that deputy military leave is so much higher than that of sergeants
or lieutenants seems unusual.
The level of training hours is far below professional standards. A normal level of training would be
40 hours on average per officer.
72
August 25, 2014
This number of anomalies in the data may suggest underlying issues with the validity of the information
submitted for use in this analysis. An audit of the accuracy of the staff leave data summarized here is
beyond the scope of this project. However, because this data is essential for accurate calculation of
Corrections Bureau staffing requirements, it is in the County’s interest to validate the accuracy and
reliability of this data.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to
document its accuracy.
If accurate, the leave data reported for staff should be regularly monitored to detect patterns and
trends in employee leave use. The relief factor should be updated annually to ensure that it reflects
changes in these trends.
Applying this level of staff availability to the hours required for 24/7 posts results in the relief factors
summarized in Figure 30.
Figure 30: Relief Factor Calculation
Hours per year
Hours per year divided by NAWH
Shift relief factor
Lieutenant
8,760.0
4.84
1.61
Sergeant
8,760.0
4.72
1.57
Corrections deputy
8,760.0
5.40
1.80
This represents a 5.2% increase over the relief factor currently used by the Corrections Bureau. (For
purposes of budgeting, the effective relief factor is lower due to unpaid leave.) Applying this more
accurate relief factor to the staffing roster recommended in this report will increase staffing
requirements by an estimated eight positions over the same recommended roster using the current
relief factor. If appropriately managed, these additional positions should avert 12,984 hours of overtime.
Based on the overtime management model described earlier in this report, summarized in Figure 31,
this increase in relief staff will reduce overtime spending by an estimated $627.4 thousand, or 23% from
current projected spending levels. The projected cost of the additional relief staff is $605.6 thousand,
resulting in a net savings of $21.8 thousand.
Figure 31: Fiscal Impact of Adjusting Relief Factor
OT hours
averted by
new hire
12,984
OT hours
Annual cost
Total cost Cost if all OT Savings/(costs)
remaining
Cost of OT for
of new
paid to from hiring new
with new
for existing
existing staff
deputies
existing staff
staff
staff
staff
8
7,626 $ 605,608 $
368,465 $ 974,073 $ 995,852 $
21,779
# of New
hires
As described earlier, however, these savings are contingent upon the appropriate deployment and
assignment of relief staff in a targeted manner to address staff shortfalls related to overtime. This
73
August 25, 2014
requires a significant upgrade in the overtime tracking and management capabilities of the Corrections
Bureau. As such, the savings identified above should be viewed realistically as the “potential” benefits
that can be realized from adjusting the number of relief staff to appropriate levels.
RECOMMENDATION: Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff
required to provide recommended post coverage without undue reliance upon overtime. This
will result in an increase in the relief factor from 1.74 for a 24/7 corrections deputy post to 1.80,
and an increase in staffing of eight corrections deputies.
Staffing Recommendations
In summary, our assessment proposes the following modifications to the current post staffing plan for
the Corrections Bureau:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminate one of the two captain posts.
Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post.
Eliminate two 24/7 deputy posts in Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail.
Add a shift/roster sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for shift commanders and
manage staff deployment.
Add a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing shifts, seven days per week to
better manage existing workload demands.
Add a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with day and evening shift 24/7 coverage to
provide improved supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit.
Add a housing unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized
supervision of inmates on suicide watch status.
Convert the courts/IT sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure
deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related experience and
qualifications.
Create a 24/7 deputy post in the New Jail to supervise the newly opened housing unit
recommended in the report to supplant the closure of Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main
Jail.
Update the relief factor.
Figure 32 summarizes the fiscal impact of these recommendations. Relative to current Corrections
Bureau operations, we recommend elimination of 16 positions, adding 22 positions associated with
recommended new posts, converting 5 officer positions to civilians, and adding 8 positions associated
with updating the relief factor. The net impact of these reductions is an increase of 14 staff. The net
fiscal impact of all of these recommendations, however, is a savings of $34.9 thousand. The reduction in
overtime created by the update of the relief factor, the salary savings from conversion of 5 officer
positions to civilians, and the high level of savings from the recommended reductions in command staff
all combine to largely offset the additional cost created by the recommended 22 new positions.
74
August 25, 2014
Figure 32: Staffing and Fiscal impact of Recommendations
Recommendation
Eliminate one captain post
Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post
Eliminate housing unit posts for Units 3 East and 4 East
Add shift/foster Sergeant post
Add Main Jail Unit sergeant post
Add Housing Unit 3 South Control post
Add Housing Unit 3 South post
Convert courts/IT sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance,
supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions
Total
Staffing
impact
(1)
(4)
(11)
5
5
3
4
5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Fiscal impact
($000)
(169.3)
(603.6)
(1,076.5)
538.2
500.9
300.5
302.0
377.5
8
14
$
$
$
(182.8)
(21.8)
(34.9)
The recommended staffing plan addresses key areas driving overtime utilization and should substantially
reduce the routine use of overtime to staff ongoing operational functions. The plan also addresses
several key risk areas and moves the operation of the Corrections Bureau closer to compliance with
recognized best practices. Figure 33 summarizes the posts and associated staffing recommended in this
report.
Figure 33: Corrections Bureau Recommended Posts
Post/Position
8 Hr.
Days
Chief
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr.
Swing
8 Hr.
Graves
10 Hr.
Days
Days/
Week
Hours/
Week
Total
FTEs
8.0
5
40
1.00
8.0
5
40
1.00
Admin Lieutenant
8.0
5
40
1.00
Programs Lieutenant
8.0
5
40
1.00
PREA/Medical Lieutenant
8.0
5
40
1.00
7
168
4.84
Captain
Captain - Programs
Lieutenant
Shift Lieutenant
8.0
8.0
8.0
Sergeant
Classification Sergeant
8.0
5
40
1.00
Courts Sergeant
8.0
5
40
1.00
Records/Release Sergeant
8.0
5
40
1.00
JIP Sergeant
8.0
5
40
1.00
Shift/Roster Sergeant
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
4.72
Unit Sergeant
24.0
24.0
16.0
7
448
12.59
Booking Sergeant (New Jail)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
4.72
Corrections Deputy
75
August 25, 2014
Post/Position
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr.
Swing
8 Hr.
Graves
Control Room
16.0
16.0
Booking
24.0
Fingerprints/Photographs
8.0
Booking Escort
Release
10 Hr.
Days
Days/
Week
Hours/
Week
Total
FTEs
8.0
7
280
9.00
24.0
24.0
7
504
16.19
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
24.0
24.0
24.0
7
504
16.19
24.0
24.0
8.0
7
392
12.60
New Jail
Housing
2A (84-Bed Dorm)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
2B (84-Bed Dorm - Intake)
16.0
16.0
16.0
7
336
10.80
2C (84-Bed Dorm)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
2D (2 - 42 Bed Dorms)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
3A (84-Bed Dorm)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
3B (84-Bed Dorm)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
3C (84-Bed Dorm)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
3D (84-Bed Dorm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.00
4A (84-Bed Dorm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.00
4B (84-Bed Dorm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.00
4C (84-Bed Dorm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.00
4D (84-Bed Dorm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.00
2nd Floor Escort
16.0
16.0
8.0
7
280
9.00
3rd Floor Escort
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
8.0
5.0
0.0
5
65
2.09
8.0
8.0
0.0
7
112
3.60
16.0
16.0
8.0
7
280
9.00
3 South F (1 Unit / 10 Beds)
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
3 South Control
8.0
8.0
0.0
7
112
3.60
16.0
16.0
8.0
7
280
9.00
16.0
16.0
8.0
7
280
9.00
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
8.0
8.0
8.0
7
168
5.40
5 West (4 Units / Female Intake)
16.0
16.0
8.0
7
280
9.00
Escort Officer, 3rd Floor
16.0
16.0
16.0
7
336
10.80
Escort Officer 4th Floor
24.0
24.0
32.0
7
560
17.99
8.0
8.0
0.0
7
112
3.60
Main Jail
Housing
Career Development
Reception
Reception - New Jail
76
August 25, 2014
Post/Position
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr.
Days
8 Hr.
Swing
8 Hr.
Graves
Reception - Old Jail
8.0
8.0
Visitation - Old Jail
0.0
Visitation - Old Jail
10 Hr.
Days
Days/
Week
Hours/
Week
Total
FTEs
0.0
7
112
3.60
8.0
0.0
5
40
1.29
8.0
0.0
0.0
2
16
0.51
16.0
0.0
0.0
5
80
2.57
8.0
8.0
0.0
7
112
3.60
5
40
1.00
4
40
1.29
160.0
5
800
25.70
8.0
5
40
1.29
Safety Deputy
8.0
5
40
1.00
Background/Recruiting Deputy
8.0
5
40
1.00
Office Assistant
20.0
5
100
3.50
Facilities Supply Spec.
8.0
5
40
1.00
Administrative Assistant
8.0
5
40
1.00
Facilities Maintenance Technician
16.0
5
80
2.00
Computer Systems Bus. Analyst
8.0
5
40
1.00
5
95
2.40
Classification
Industries
Prisoner Work Coordinator
8.0
Workcrew Deputy
10.0
Court Escort
Court Escort Deputy
Medical Transport Deputy
Civilians
Corrections Tech
16.0
3.0
0.0
Medical Director
8.0
5
40
1.00
Detective Sergeant
4.0
5
20
0.50
Mental Health Manager
8.0
5
40
1.00
Budget Manager
Mental Health Evaluator
4.0
56.0
5
5
20
280
0.50
7.00
Dept. Computer Support
8.0
5
40
1.00
Accounting Assistant
16.0
5
80
2.00
Pre-Trial Screener
16.0
5
80
2.00
77
Appendix 1 Pierce County Corrections Bureau Response with Comments from CGL Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 RE: Technical Review of Draft Jail Operations Study Operations Recommendations 1. Develop written policy and procedures which will document and formalize in detail the purpose, processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau’s current system for roster management.  Support: The current system was implemented as a cost savings measure in 1999 and while an Instruction Book was created at that time, development of policies and procedure to formalize and structure the process is needed.  CGL: Agree 2. Negotiate a change in the County’s labor contracts to allow more management discretion in scheduling vacation leave. In the short‐term, explore hiring part‐time or per diem deputies that can be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu of overtime. If permissible under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are interested in working part‐time.  Support in concept: While we are supportive of the concept of distributing the vacation time more evenly throughout the year to avoid peak months, the Labor Unions will be opposed and it will have to be bargained. Part time or intermittent position development will be explored to determine potential savings of covering vacant posts at straight time vs. overtime. Concerns with providing current training and equipment needs will be addressed.  CGL: Agree 3. Develop a system for collecting data on overtime and roster management that identifies the shift, location, pay period, and category of operational need that drives each hour of overtime incurred. Use this data to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of the use of overtime versus additional staff to meet operational requirements.  Support: An automated system to collect and track overtime usage was developed in 2003. However, that system was lost with the implementation of Workday in 2013. We are currently capturing the data manually and hope to automate by October, 2014.  CGL: Agree 1 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 4. Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close supervision due to the threat of suicide. Two possible options are Unit 3 South (F), which is a small linear housing unit, where a deputy has the capability of directly observing inmates through their cell door and also observe them on a video monitor, as the cells are equipped with cameras.  Support: The 3SF unit is the best option for supervising actively suicidal inmates. This unit has been operating on an OT, as needed basis and permanent funding has been requested for 2015. Permanent funding will reduce liability and improve the level of service with a stable, trained and consistent staffing complement. 
CGL: Agree 5. Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all be transported separately.  Support: This change has been implemented.  CGL: Agree 6. Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost‐effective means to provide pre‐shift briefing information through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols. The current methodology to brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a daily basis regarding policy/procedure issues and operational matters.  Support: While best practices would support a paid briefing, we are exploring varied schedules as well as electronic display via web or TV monitor to pass on pertinent information from one shift to another.  CGL: Agree 7. Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in‐service training for all custody staff. In order to develop and support the training program the Corrections Bureau should re‐establish the position of Training Officer. This individual will be responsible for organizing pre‐service and in service training for eligible employees and ensure that a quality training program is in place and being delivered. 2 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 

Support: This expansion of our current in‐service training is included in our 2015 budget requests. A minimum of 40 hours for in‐service annual training is supported by the American Corrections Association, National Institute of Corrections and American Jail Association. Increased training will result in reduced liability to the county. CGL: Agree 8. Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the New Jail.  Support with reservations: The traditional organizational structure for jails delineates one captain over operations and one captain over programs. The creation of a unified command structure with two captains is currently being explored with the goals of fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities and improved communication, safety, security and program development. The reduction of an existing captain position is not recommended. A captain position was cut in 2011 which resulted in increased workloads for the existing captains, as well as program development being lost. PCSD Jail is the 2nd largest jail in the state and the captains act as subject matter experts on legal issues and lawsuits, overseeing all personnel issues, developing and implementing policy and procedure, budget development and oversight, internal affairs and discipline matters, training etc. Reduction of one captain position would severely inhibit the developmental initiatives that need to occur and result in insufficient supervision based on size and physical location of the 2 jail facilities. Additional reaction from the Unions may include working out of class and unfair labor issues initiative grievance actions. Other jail comparisons to consider are (*see attached A organizational charts): • Snohomish – Chief, Major, 2 Captains; • Clark – Chief, 4 Commanders; • King – Director, Deputy Director, 2 Commanders, Chief of Administration, Community Corrections Director and Juvenile Director; • Thurston – Chief, 2 Captains; • Multnomah County – Chief, 4 Captains; • Spokane – Director, Assistant Director, 2 Managers; • Pima County AZ – Chief, 3 Captains. 3 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402  CGL: Agree with clarification. As stated in our report, under the current command structure one captain manages operation of the Main Jail and the other Captain has primary responsibility for the operation of the New Jail. Our analysis indicates that operational command for both facilities should be unified. The Corrections Bureau’s objection relates not to our specific recommendation to unify the command structure for jail operations, but instead addresses the need for two captains, taking into context program and administrative functions. Assuming the Corrections Bureau can make the case for a second captain based on non‐operational responsibilities, this is a separate issue from this recommendation, which deals only with our conclusion that one captain should to supervise jail operations in both the New Jail and the Main Jail. The issue of the need for the second captain to manage program issues is addressed in Recommendation #21. 9. Explore the potential expansion of video hearings for District Court motion and plea hearing sessions and Superior Court arraignments.  Support: Analysis is underway to cost out video connection to the municipal courts if contracting is reinstated. We will explore additional video options with District Court and Superior Court to reduce workloads.  CGL: Agree 10. Develop a long‐range plan to augment the current camera surveillance system with cameras installed in inmate housing areas.  Support with reservations: While we support this additional security equipment in concept the cost is prohibitive. This has been a budget request in past years. CGL: Agree. Adequate camera coverage throughout the jail is a significant security need. Establishing a long‐term plan that phases in installation of new cameras and surveillance systems over a period of years will allow the County to budget for this expenditure in affordable increments. 4 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 11. Commence development of a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security electronics to control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating the need to carry cellblock keys into the living units.  Not supported: The corrections’ deputies enter the housing units hundreds of times per day. Door control from the deputies’ station would cause delay and added workload. The consultants may not be aware that the keys only open the unit doors, central control can override the deputies’ key control in case of a takeover and egress through the gates is centrally controlled, preventing escape to other areas of the jail.  CGL: Agree. The fact that central control can override the keys to the entry doors limits the utility of a facility security electronic upgrade. 12. Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of video visitation systems to supplant current visiting systems in the jail.  Support: We are in the process of installing kiosks in the jail units and will be exploring various services such as medical and mental health requests (kites), inmate rules, commissary ordering and video visiting through the unit kiosks.  CGL: Agree. 13. Revise the Policy Manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post orders, tool control, use of force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update of the Policy Manual.  Support: We will be reformatting our policies and procedures into the Lexipol structure in the near future. An annual review process is needed and will be implemented shortly.  CGL: Agree. Capacity Management Recommendations 14. Compress the number of security classification levels from the present 9 levels to a system that utilizes 3 – 4 levels. 5 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
Support: Dr. James Austin has completed an initial review of our current Classification System and recommended that we simplify and streamline our system. He is scheduled to return in September, October and December to work with our Classification staff to make improvements to our current system. CGL: Agree. 
15. Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female offenders.  Support: This recommendation will be followed up with Dr. James Austin and the future work on our Classification system.  CGL: Agree. 16. Remove mandatory requirement that all presentence inmates remain in medium security until sentenced. A review of the inmate’s history and review of the circumstances of the charges and arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre‐sentence offenders classified as appropriate for minimum security housing.  Support: This recommendation will be followed up by Dr. James Austin and the work on revising our Classification system to streamline and make it more efficient. Those inmates that would qualify for a lower classification if they were not in a pre‐sentence status will be reviewed.  CGL: Agree. 17. Conduct a formal study and potential replacement of the classification instrument to achieve a more normal distribution of the inmate population into minimum custody.  Support: This recommendation will be followed up by Dr. James Austin and his work with us.  CGL: Agree. 18. Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail. Juveniles should be housed in the County’s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract detention facility. 6 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402  Support: This move has been initiated with a letter to the Director of Juvenile Detention outlining the federal PREA violations and risk that is taken by the county to house juveniles at the PCSD Jail.  CGL: Agree. 19. Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit, with trained staff, pending revalidation of the jail’s classification system.  Support: Best practice dictates an integrated mental health housing program coordinated with objective classification and a discipline system that considers the mental health status of the inmate. Correction noted on housing labels in the report ‐ 3westA only has 12 not 24 cells, 3westB and 3northC are not mental health housing. We are in the process of identifying an appropriate unit that provides an adequate number of beds and secure cells for a centralized housing approach.  CGL: Agree. By way of clarification, while 3 West A has 12 cells the double‐celled capacity of the unit is 24. Also, staff indicated that while not serving as mental units, 3 West B and 3 North C are used to house mentally ill offenders based on an as needed basis. 20. Close housing units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail and open one of the closed housing units in the New Jail.  Support in concept. We agree that these units are antiquated (1950’s design) and offer poor lines of sight. While it may be an attractive move from a short term fiscal standpoint, operationally it would prohibit us from complying with court orders and federal laws related to ADA. The individual housing units in 3east and 4east are used to house distinct populations that cannot be housed elsewhere: ‐ Female inmates with ADA issues that cannot use stairs; ‐ Medical conditions that cause male and female inmates to be vulnerable in larger units; ‐ Court ordered phone restrictions; ‐ Protective custody; ‐ “keep separate” concerns from one or several other inmates housed in the Main Jail and New Jail. 7 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402  CGL: Agree. We understand that the recent increase in the Jail’s population may make the relocation of these inmates difficult in the short‐term. The key to identifying adequate housing for the special populations housed in these units is implementation of a new classification system that will more effectively identify the minimum security population and provide more flexibility in housing assignments for medium and minimum security offenders. Staffing Recommendations 21. Assign one of the two captain positions the Operations Captain for the Corrections Bureau and end the current dual operational command. The second captain position can be eliminated as a cost savings measure. The new Administrative Lieutenant (PREA/Medical) position can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other support units within the organization and that position can report to the Operations Captain.  Not supported. This recommendation appears to be based solely on cost reduction rather than good correctional practice; it is ill advised and would severely affect our ability to manage the operations, programs and services. In 2011 a third captain position was eliminated resulting in reduced support and progress relative to inmate programs and services. The remaining two captains carry a full workload of responsibilities and supervision of Lieutenants and support staff. Assigning this work to a Lieutenant will constitute taking work from one bargaining unit to another and would be a violation of current union contracts regarding working out of class. It would be grieved by both the Captains and Lieutenant union associations. As stated in #8, comparable size facilities have the same or more captains along with majors in their staffing complement. We are currently short on PREA Compliance requirements with one PREA Coordinator who also has responsibility of Food Services and the Medical Contract with CCS. "The PREA Coordinator must have sufficient time and authority to develop, implement and oversee the agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards (11511(b) Where an agency operates more than one facility, each facility shall designate a PREA compliance manager (115,11 (c)". We will be reviewing this assignment and making some changes prior to our PREA Audit. (*see attachment B job classification description.  CGL: Agree with clarification. The premise for the recommendation to eliminate the second captain was based on the current jail command structure, which splits responsibility for jail operations between the two captains. Jail management is studying a change in these duties, assigning the second captain responsibility for program development and management. The approach of 8 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 establishing one captain over operations and one captain over programs is a standard model for jail system management. The jail currently has an under‐
developed set of programs. Assignment of a captain to this area would be a positive step toward meaningful program development which we support. However, if the Corrections Bureau makes this change in assignment, we recommend deleting the Programs Lieutenant post included in our staffing recommendations. Establishment of a Programs Captain would make this post unnecessary. As a result of this deletion, the overall headcount impact of retaining the second captain relative to our recommended staffing is zero. 22. Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail and the New Jail, consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and should be filled on a 24 hour/7 days per week (24/7) basis.  Support with reservations: This recommendation appears to be cost shifting and would not be supported by the Lieutenants or Sergeants Union. It would result in possible grievances and/or lawsuits. Sergeants would be working out of class; the one Lieutenant couldn't possibly offer necessary supervision to both jail staff based on distance between the two facilities. A reduction in Lieutenant's on Graveyard shift to one Lieutenant for both facilities could however be explored during the planned comprehensive Staffing Analysis.  CGL: Agree with clarification. The recommendation to establish one lieutenant shift commander post is premised upon the need to unify operational command over both the Main Jail and the New Jail and the establishment of an additional shift/roster sergeant post (Recommendation #24) to relieve the Shift Lieutenant of administrative duties. If the shift/roster sergeant post cannot be established due to current collective bargaining agreements, we agree that a second Shift Lieutenant post is required. 23. Convert the Courts/IT Sergeant post to a civilian position with information technology experience and qualifications.  Support with reservations: The current IT/Courts Sergeant has a great degree of knowledge of the operations, programs, services and facility resources which enhance his ability to make decisions regarding the LINX system. This Sergeant assists the court team, covers high profile trials, oversees personnel issues, conducts medical transports and provides relief during absences or higher 9 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
workload demand. This relief work should be analyzed prior to creating a permanent to evaluate the cost benefit of converting to a civilian position. This Sergeant creates reports and conducts data analysis upon demand for not only the department but also external requests. If replaced by an IT Technician position, they are paid a higher salary and all corrections and court relief currently covered by the IT/Court Sergeant would be on Overtime. (*See attachment C for corrected fiscal impact.) CGL: Agree with clarification. This post is in the Career Development category, and as such is a temporary assignment. To the extent that the current IT/Courts Sergeant provides effective service in this post, we support deferring the conversion of this post to a specialized civilian post until such time as the incumbent returns to a regular custody assignment. 24. Create a Shift/Roster Sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for Shift Commanders and manage staff deployment.  Not Supported: This would require funding for an entire post of Sergeants and is not cost effective. It would result in a violation of negotiated union contracts and would potentially result in unfair labor practices, skimming and working out of class. Further evaluation of this recommendation should occur.  CGL: Agree with clarification. The intent of this post is to provide support for the one lieutenant shift commander post identified in Recommendation #22. If establishment of a shift/roster sergeant post would violate current union agreements and could not be implemented, we recommend deleting this recommended post and adding a lieutenant post to perform these responsibilities. 25. Create a second Unit Sergeant for the Main Jail on the Day and Swing shifts, seven days per week to better manage existing workload demands.  Support: This recommendation has been included in budget requests for approximately nine years. It is indicated in the Sheriff's Five Year Plan in 2007 and the budget requests for 2015. The Floor Sergeants work load has increased due to a higher volume of disturbances, mentally ill and drug affected inmate population. The Sergeants mediate complaints before they become formal grievances and unlike many other jails, our Corrections Deputies are commissioned to carry weapons and possess arrest powers. The Sergeants investigate crimes occurring in custody, write general reports, collect evidence 10 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
and get subpoenaed to court, the workload is significant and a second Sergeant on days and swing shifts in the Main Jail is justified and much needed. CGL: Agree. 26. Create a Control Unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7 coverage to provide improved supervision of the high risk population housed in the Unit.  Support: Again, this recommendation has been requested through budget requests in past years including the forthcoming 2015 budget request. The jail has been augmenting this position with light duty staff and pulling escort officers affecting their transporting of inmates within the facility.  CGL: Agree. 27. Create a Housing Unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized supervision on inmates on suicide watch status.  Support: Permanent funding for this unit is required with the number of active suicidal inmates requiring direct supervision, (see #4). The addition of this post would reduce potential liability for the county by providing direct supervision and camera monitoring by a deputy and would free up other cells to provide housing for violent and combative inmates.  CGL: Agree. 28. Convert the Low Voltage, General Maintenance, Supply, and Public Disclosure Deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job‐related experience and qualifications.  Support with reservations: • Low voltage: ‐ The salary for a specialized maintenance technician manager costs anywhere from $85K to $110K not including calling outs; ‐ Deputy currently provides backup for emergencies and for other posts in the jail, avoiding overtime; ‐ KSA’s of Corrections Operations demonstrated significant cost savings; ‐ Policy and Procedure development of security electronics issues. • General Maintenance Deputy: 11 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 ‐ Deputy currently provides backup for emergencies and relief, avoiding overtime; ‐ Maintains security and accountability of keys, vehicles and radios that cannot be maintained by civilians; ‐ Supervises inmate work crews (inside and outside facilities); ‐ Originally cut from a LT to a SGT, then from a SGT to a deputy position; ‐ Similar duties conducted by a captain in patrol; ‐ Subject to mandatory overtime. • Supply Deputy: ‐ Weekly Relief and backup for emergencies; ‐ Supervises inmate work crews (inside and outside facilities) this is an armed position; ‐ Other facilities such as King County has a Sergeant working this position; ‐ Subject to mandatory overtime. (*See attachment C for corrected fiscal impact.)  CGL: Agree. The job responsibilities associated with these posts do no justify the assignment of a correctional deputy. To the extent that the current incumbents provides effective service, we support deferring the conversion of these posts to civilian job assignments until such time as the incumbents return to regular custody assignments. 29. Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light duty post to six months, thereby reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable number.  Support in concept: Position is held for 12 months per administrative guidelines. Positions are noted in Guild contract. Some are covering budgeted positions that would most often be filled by overtime. Current use off‐sets costs: special duty assignments, i.e., background, training FTO, maintenance projects, mail, etc.  CGL: Agree. 30. Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to document its accuracy.  Support: Our new system 'Workday' canceled this report which was previously generated by our older system. We are in the process of developing an automated replacement with IT (see #3). 12 Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
Corrections Bureau
CGL: Agree. 31. Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff required to provide recommended post coverage without reliance upon overtime. In order to maximize operational efficiency, we recommend that the relief factor update be applied to the recommended post roster, which incorporates the operational improvements developed in this report.  Support: If an accurate relief factor is established with related funding, our overtime expenditures will potentially be reduced if population and designated posts remain consistent.  CGL: Agree. 13 Court SelVlO,S
facdlUe,
Release
Food Semces
Contract
MOlUtonng
VISitation
Med.cal Pro\lders
July 3(1, 2014
\ Y'i\•..)O~ .,,~
1.
tca.,-\o.~t\~
\- CJ"e~
Administrative Assistant
Valerie Deming
it- Gt\1J)1Q.nd(!f5
Administrative Support
Debbie Maudlin
A,B Squads
Property / SRT
Leadership/SMART
Training / Facilities
Skills Cntr
Extra Duty
SRO
Outreach
Forfeiture Hearings
Amphitheater
MRT
Explorers
Drug Task Force
Intelligence
I
JWC Operations
Inmate Programs
Work Release
Food Services
Laundry
RMS/CMS Steering
Attendance
SWATIEOD
Traffic / Marine
TDU/CCAT
ASU / SSTF
Region 4
K-9/CVE
Transport
MedicallMental Health
Video Arraign/phone
Support Staff7
Front Desk
Re-Entry/Skills Cntr
CRESA/SOR
Planning & Accred
MCU /CJC
Unusual
Occurrence
Coordinator
Crime Analysis
PIO
C,D,E,F Squads
Deployment
Planning / PDR
BOI / PREA / CIT
Programs
Classification
Safety Committee
..
Training
Jail Records
Criminal Records
Warrants
Evidence
Logistics
Equipment
Seized Property
Radios & Telecom
"BaokgmUnd..
Recruitment
Labor
Budget
Purchasing
Contracts
GrantMgmt
Commissary
Case Mgmt
Campus Security
Campus Unit
Risk Mgmt
Health & Safety
Internal Affairs
I. T.
Cadets
Reception
.17.13
~\~~
c() .
Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
KC Chief of Operations Rhonda Berry Interim Department Director
William Hayes
KC Human Resources Division (DES) Nancy Buonanno
Grennan ~
,-
Administrative Services Division Chief of Administration
Steven larsen
l
8/1/2014
Deputy
Director
Hikari Tamura
I
Seattle Division
Facility Commander
Gordon Karlsson
...I
Internal
Investigations Unit
Captain Troy Bacon
(Interim)
Human Resources
Section
Cynthia McNabb
Training
Steering
Committee
Confidential secreta-;;lll Steven Falcon
..
Kent Division
Facility Commander
Edwin Bautista
(Acting)
~
Juvenile Division
Director
Pam Jones
Community Corrections Division
Director
Nate Caldwell
eriffs Office
CHIEF
DANIELS, KAREN
SUPPORT DIVISION CAPTAIN
CD
EATON, GEORGE
OPERATIONS CAPTAIN THOMA, TODD INFORMATION SYSTEMS
BROWN, PAT
MIS/SG\1
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
VACANT
::;ES
FSM
AFM
FSS
FSS
FSS
5
1
CORRECTIONS TECHNICIAN
RHOADES, KENNETH ( 1
INMATE SERVICES L1. THOMPSON, DEBBIE )NS PROGRAM
INMATE SERVICES
BELCHER, CLAUDE
lSS/SGT
HOUSE, JACK
CO
LERIE
s) SGT
SGT
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
ADMINISTRATIVE LT. -- DAYSHIFT
BAILEY, GARY
FLOATER CO'S
LE, TUNG
BEALL, TYSON
WATSON, THOMAS
GRAHAM, HEATHER
®
PROVIDERS
COP
COP
COP
COP
MEDICAL/ADMIN.
MEDICAL/ADMIN
MEDICALlMD
MH CLINICAL COORD
MH COURT
MH COORD
MENTAL HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH
(SPSCC) ABE
(SPSCC) EDUC ASST
'amed on the reverse)
@
CO
CO
.6CO
.6 CO
MEDICAL LIAISONS
SMITH, PATTY
MLS/SGT
GUILL, SKIP
MLO/CO
MTO/CO
BELCHER, LINDA
COURT OFFICERS
TIM MILLS
STEFFEN, RICHARD
OLSEN,ROBERT
ElLEFSON, ARTHUR
BECKER,STEVE
BENEFIELD, TERESA
YOUNG, MIKE
ABERCROMBIE, VERLENE
SGT
LCO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
®
EXTRA HELP STAFF/PART-TIME CO'S
BALLEW. MAX
MORGAN. CHRISTEL
MCKENZIE. LORENZO
SCHELL. ANN
GRAHAM. HEATHER
MARQUEZ SANRICA
WATSON. THOMAS
ROBBINS. PATRICK
EIH
EIH
EIH
EIH
FSS
FSS
FSS
CT
PIT
SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENTS AND ADDITIONAL DUTY ASSIGNMENTS (are named on the reverse.) 1
-
2
1
-
6
12
61
2
5
-
5
9
103.2-
Chief
Captain
Associate Administrator
Lieutenants
Sergeants
Corrections Officers
.6 FTE Corrections Officers
Food Services Staff
Admin. Support Staff
Master Control Corr. Technicians
TOTAL
REVISED: 11/1106 November 06 Org Chart.vsd \"\~~~~
Sheriff
Daniel Staton
U)~ \$
~\U~, '\b"""""':1 t\ ~ Q,~
-t..", ~r \.\~;-\ ...i\
~ '!'..:,\ s.
u.~o..
0..
' ..
~"\
tb\"t\f....
Em(cnigall S&lDdardl
Lleuten""t H.-ry Smith
- Internal Affairs
• Inspections
Executive StaU
DMne Hutchlnaon, Admin. Au/mnt
Lt Sttlve Alexander, PlO
I!d Stelle, Cheple/n
BIIIIIII B~IIIII[£U
Jannlfer Ott, Men""er
Human Resources
• Backgrounds
- Wortplace Intervention
Front Deak I Reception
o
Undersheriff
Tim Moore
----
o
1
(
Bllllolli Sla~11
Chle'Deputy Linde Yenk..
Corrections
&DffU:'IIDIO!
Ch,., Deputy JHon Get..
Chief Deputy Mike Shul"
l
Adminjsilll!in Sma
Julie Lon", A dmln. Au/afllllt
fllaal•• " Bl:aUtCb Ilai'
CIIPt.1n Monte Re;'er
• Uniform Patrol
- CMI Process
- TriMet
Logistics Unit
John Melli"", Admin. Sgt.
Mcnc IDetcatjoQ Clatar)
FIsqIUo;t
Wande
• Fiscal
• Payroll
blml
Je"Wheel~, AdmlnLt.
ShH M.-.hm"", DlnH:tor
• Data Analytical Research
• Program Analysis
y""u., Men""er
I-'
o
ClIPtaln Den1ck Peterson
·Booklng
IIDBialiiDi
~
Lieutenant Ned Walla
CAT I Detectives I OVERT
Dangerous Drugs I SIU I Metro
- Human Traf!lcklng I EMGET
Warrant Task Force I Intercept
·Maxlmum Security Detention
.population Release
o
.....
o
IqlnlnB lJoit
CIIPt.1n o.v. Rllder
oAgency-wlde Tl'linlng
CgaB&iRII &lIlIagd IIDil
Joyce QrIffIn, Mene,.,.
• Corrections Records
Po.,.
MCIJ alyero..., Jajll
Captain MIllY Llnd."."nd
·Max I Medium Security DetentJonr-'
·Inmate Wort Craws
• Transport Hub
I-'
I-'
Court Services Section
CI/Ptaln Rei Ad".,..
Courthouse Security /Holding
-Transparts
ofadllty Security
Ctimillil .Il1m"llafQ, SDlIlDI
M""eger
- Information Technology
-Web Muter
Andy
0
~
o
Bi!lz:EI&ml
Lieutllllant Trw;' GuJlbetg
- Columbia OffIce
1IIIIIIametta OftIce
r-'
o
-
EafQBlmSlI& SIPII/til
Becky ChRd, M",,1It1eT
• Alarms
• Law Enforcement Records
- LEOS Representative
• Warrants I Word Processing
- Concealed Handgun Ucen&es
Facility Sirvin' Seetjon
CIIPt.1n Joee Marline
- Close Street Supervision
Classification I Hearings
- Inmate Programs
• Volunteers
- Correetlons Contracts
Jail Chaplain Services
.....
o
4.11111110:: Slo::l"lI
CIIPt.ln Deve Reder
Inmate Property I Laundry
- Commissary
Procurement
o
o
o
Multnomah County Sheriffs Office
Organizational Chart
Apri12, 2014
~
~
I
Dtt"tdrnr
\ t1&si-. 'j)rt.~~r
1 M.U\...~("s
SPOKANE COUNTY
DETENTION SERVICES
[~minM9r
Director John C. McGrath
Jan SedDf
r---===U-'
_. .----;.. ;
I
!I
I
Acct. Tech (4)
r
i'~I
Officer(3)
Officer!S)
Officer (2)
Teacher (I)
Ca•• Mgr (2)
Maint (2)
Pima County Sheritf's Department :: Corrections Bureau
Page 1 of 1
Home> About Us :> Organization Charts> Corrections Bureau
Corrections Bureau
Corrections Bureau
Byron Gwaltney
Chief
Housing
Operations
Sean Stewart
Corrections Captain
Support Services
Joshua Arnold
Corrections Captain
Information &
Planning
India Davis
Corrections Captain
« Return to Organization Charts
http://www.pimasheriff.org/about-us/organization-charts/corrections-bureaul
7/3112014
e
Classification Description
Pierce Connty CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN
Department: Sheriff Job Class #: 258700 Pay Range: 9NO I FLSA: Exempt
Represented: Yes
CSC Approved:
Classification descriptions are intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed by
employees in the class. Classification descriptions are not intended to reflect all duties performed within
the job.
GENERAL FUNCTION: This is highly responsible supervisory and division management work performed
for the Pierce County Sheriffs Department Corrections Bureau. This position typically reports to the
Corrections Bureau Chief. Guidelines for performing the work can be broad or ofa specific nature, and are in
the form ofgeneral administrative policies and procedures. Division assignments include Operations, Support
Services or Programs, or other assignments that may be developed; assignments rotate.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
• Plan, administer, coordinate, manage, and supervise the activities of an assigned division within the
Sheriffs Department Corrections Bureau.
• Develop division goals and objectives; implement effective measures to meet established goals and
objectives.
• Supervise all assigned personnel; includes scheduling, assignments, performance review, training and
development, resolution of personnel issues, and recommendations for selection and disciplinary
action.
• Prepare, justify, and monitor division budget.
• Monitor and evaluate division operations and effectiveness; assess equipment and operational needs;
make recommendations for purchase; maintain inventory records.
• Frequently represent the Sheriff on matters being presented before County Departments, public service
agencies, community groups and the general public.
• Assist in development of Department policies and procedures; make recommendations for revisions or
new policies and procedures; assure consistent and accurate application of policies and procedures.
• Establish and maintain constructive and effective working relationships, both within and outside the
Corrections Bureau.
• Effectively persuade, inform, educate, train, solicit information and motivate a wide variety ofindividuals
or groups.
• Effectively coordinate, perform, and complete multiple duties and assignments concurrently and in
a timely manner.
• May be responsible for overall Department decisions while acting in the capacity ofBureau Chief, as
assigned.
• May represent the County in labor negotiations as part of the management team
• Maintain regular, predictable and punctual attendance.
• Perform the functions of Command Duty Officer when assigned.
• Perform the physical requirements of the position; work within the established working conditions of
the position.
• Perform all essential functions as required of the Corrections Deputy classification.
OTHER JOB FUNCTIONS:
• Perform other job functions as assigned.
CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN
Page 2
SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED: Correctional Captains report directly to the Bureau Chief
and work is reviewed for fulfillment of divisionlbureau objectives, for conformance with governing laws and
regulations, adherence to budget, and support and furtherance of Department mission, vision and goals. The
Correctional Captain position has full supervisory responsibility for commissioned, technical, administrative
and/or clerical personnel, and may be assigned volunteers.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT: The work environment characteristics described herein are representative of
those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of the position. A Correctional
Captain works indoors on a regular basis, in an office, within inmate detention areas (clusters) or in close
proximity to inmates and detention areas, within the confined space of a secure adult correctional facility.
Frequent travel to and from various work sites and/or meeting locations is required. Work is subject to
frequent interruptions and higher than average levels of noise within enclosed areas. A Correctional Captain
may be exposed to physically confrontive and combative situations, personal danger and bio-hazardous
materials.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: The physical demands described herein are representative of those that
must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions ofthe position. The classification
of Correctional Captain has physical requirements of varying degrees based on numerous differing work
circumstances. Required physical activities include walking, standing, sitting, digital dexterity, talking,
hearing and seeing. A Correctional Captain must be able to clearly distinguish and identify colors, be able to
safely drive a vehicle, accurately discharge a firearm (either hand), be able to successfully discriminate
electronic, mechanical and human sounds and operate required equipment in a safe and lawful manner for the
protection/safety ofthe public, inmates, ofself and ofother employees. A Correctional Captain may be called
upon to assist in emergency situations, and must maintain physical ability to deal with physical confrontive or
combative situations including use of reasonable force up to and including deadly force. Required physical
activities during those times include, but are not limited to, running,jumping, balancing, climbing, crawling,
kneeling, bending, stooping, crouching, reaching, lifting, carrying, dragging, throwing, pushing/pulling both
objects and people.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES:
Knowledge of:
• Modem corrections methods, procedures and philosophies.
• General administrative policies and procedures.
• Rules and regulations of the Sheriffs department.
• Principles and practices of current management and supervisory theory.
• Pierce County Codes, laws and ordinances affecting jail operations.
• Applicable laws, ordinances, policies and procedures.
• Behavior of criminals and causes underlying criminality.
• Methods and procedures involved in budget development, justification and control.
• Literature, developments and trends in the field ofcorrections, correctional standards, technology and laws.
• Corrections Bureau Emergency Management Plan and emergency evacuation plans and procedures.
• Provisions of applicable collective bargaining agreements.
• Disciplinary procedures for staff and inmates.
• Basic personal computing principles, keyboard, and corrections automated systems.
• Different and unrelated processes that relate to well-established aspects of law enforcement
administration.
http://www.co.pierce.wa.usIDocumentCenterNiew/2457
?007· RIO'7· d/lO
CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN
Page 3
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: (continued)
Skill in:
• Determining priorities, assigning and delegating work and evaluating results.
• Effective verbal, written and interpersonal communications.
• Team building, leadership and motivation.
• Use of required equipment.
• Problem solving.
Ability to:
• Represent the Sheriff and the Department in a professional manner to the general public and the
community.
• Develop and implement administrative standards and procedures and evaluate their efficiency and
effectiveness.
• Respond in accordance with appropriate emergency and evacuation procedures.
• Make appropriate decisions in the assessment of unusual circumstances and exercise flexibility in
selecting appropriate responses.
• Plan, direct and evaluate the work of subordinates.
• Analyze situations quickly and objectively and determine a proper course of action
• Handle difficult and/or emotional situations firmly, tactfully, and fairly.
• Communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing, with the public, co-workers, law enforcement
personnel, employees of other agencies, inmate family members and attorneys, including audiences of
various social, cultural, ethnic, educational and economic backgrounds.
• Implement policies, goals and objectives established by the appointing authority.
• Use effective independent judgment and decision-making in the resolution of administrative,
operational and personnel management issues and in dealing with agency officials, co-workers, peers,
subordinates and the general public.
• Work effectively and productively with others.
• Effectively coordinate, perform and complete multiple duties and assignments concurrently and in a
timely manner.
• Physically perform the essential functions of the position.
• Meet the travel requirements of the position.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY:
Applicant must currently be a Pierce County Correctional Lieutenant and must have successfully completed a
one-year pro bationary period and two additional years in continuous service as a Correctional Lieutenant for a
total of three years prior to the closing date of the promotional examination announcement. Must meet good
standing requirements of Civil Service Rules. A valid Washington State driver's license is required.
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/DocumentCenterNiew/2457
?M7· R1fI7' ti/ltl
Attachment ‘C’
Recommendation
Eliminate one Captain post
Eliminate one Lieutenant Shift Commander Post
Eliminate housing unit posts for Units 3 East and 4
East
Add Shift/Roster Sergeant post
Add Main Jail Unit Sergeant post
Add 3 South Housing Unit Control Post
Add 3 South Housing Unit Post
Convert Courts/IT Sergeant, Low Voltage, General
Maintenance, Supply and Public Disclosure Deputy
posts to civilian positions
Total
Title
Captain
Lieutenants
Deputies
Deputies
Sergeants
Sergeants
Deputies
Deputies
Staffing
Impact
(1) CPT
(4) LTs
(11)
Deputies
5 Deputies
5 SGTs
3 SGTs
4 Deputies
5 Deputies
(1) SGT
(4)Deputies
Fiscal Impact
($000)
$ (169.3)
$ (603.6)
$ (1,076.5)
Corrected Fiscal
Impact 2015*
($000)
$ (165.4)
$ (583.0)
$ (1,122.9)
$ 538.2
$ 500.9
$ 300.5
$ 302.0
$ 377.5
$ 460.0 (entry level)
$ 611.5
$ 366.6
$ (182.8)
$ (530.6)
8 $ (21.8)
14 $ (34.9)
Rates for each Position @ top step
# of Positions
2014*
1
160,120
4
561,440
11
1,083,060
5
492,300
5
589,650
3
353,790
4
393,840
5
492,300
Rates for Individual Position @ top step
Title
2014*
2015*
Captain
160,120
165,430
Lieutenants
140,360
145,760
Sergeants
117,930
122,210
Deputies
98,460
102,090
Deputies (Entry Level)
91,940
2015*
165,430
583,040
1,122,990
510,450
611,050
366,630
408,360
510,450

Report - Pierce County

Transcription

Similar documents

Annual Report FY 2015 - West Virginia Legislature

2010 Minutes

- Norfolk Sheriffs Office

Custody Division Quarterly Report July

Custody Division Quarterly Report April

March 19, 2010 - Monroe County Sheriff`s Office

Annual Report Citizens Advice Bureau

View Program - Corrections Technology Association

AAFES – We Give Back! - ASMC Sub Chapters

Module 4: Epidemiology Investigation

York Citizens Advice Bureau – How did our advice help you?

2010 CABNZ Annual Report

Sheriff_Program_2010

AllPoints Bulletin - Riverside Sheriffs` Association