Bernalillo County NM Operations and Staffing Review Metro

Transcription

Staffing Analysis and Operations Review
Metropolitan Detention Center
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
February 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary……………………………………………………
I
I.
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….
1
II.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS………………………………………
2
III.
PARTICIPATION………………………………………………………….
4
IV.
CONCERNS………………………………………………………………..
5
V.
DESCRIBING AND ANALYZING THE CONTEXT……………..
6
VI.
INTERMITTENT ACTIVITIES………………………………………..
10
VII.
DEVELOPING A COVERAGE PLAN………………………………
16
A. Current Relieved Staffing Practices………………………
16
B. Evaluating and Revising Coverage Practices………….
18
C. Overall Themes…………………………………………………….
18
D. Summary of Proposed Changes…………………………….
19
E. More Detail About Proposed Changes…………………..
21
F. Illustrating Proposed Changes……………………………….
33
G. Proposed Relieved Coverage Plan…………………………
36
H. Non-Relieved Positions…………………………………………
49
I. “Details” That Require Additional Staff Effort…………
51
VIII.
SCHEDULES……………………………………………………………….
53
IX.
NET ANNUAL WORK HOURS (NAWH)…………………………
56
APPENDIX A: NOTES FROM WORK SESSIONS
A-1
APPENDIX B: STAFFING FOR NORTHPOINTE
CLASSIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
B-1
CRS Incorporated
A Non Profit Organization
Gettysburg PA
www.correction.org
[email protected]
WORKING GROUP
Jose (Michael) Alvarado, Lt. Shift Commander Swing Shift
Phyllis Cervantes, Fiscal Officer
Rainbow Cross, CHC Administrator
Randy Donahoe, Facility Coordinator
Danette Gonzales, Personnel
Roseanne Gonzales
Destry Hunt, Policy and Planning Administrator
Alexis Iverson, Corrections Technician Supervisor
Peter Koeppe, Corrections Officer
Mike Martindale, Civil Litigation Administrator
Rosanne Otero, Classification Coordinator
Chris Owen, Accreditation
Ruben Padilla, Assistant Chief
Stephen Perkins, Lt., Union President, Shift Commander- Graves Shift
Monica Romero, Quality Assurance
Sabree Rooks, Quality Assurance
Ramon Rustin, Chief
Kevin Sourisseau, Finance Director
Tom Swisstack, Deputy County Manager
James Zamora, Acting Operations
Consultant: Rod Miller, President, CRS Inc.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staffing Analysis and Operations Review
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) Bernalillo County, New Mexico
In April, 2012, Bernalillo County officials commissioned a collaborative staffing analysis to provide opportunities
to examine all aspects of the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), improving effectiveness and efficiency. The
process involved stakeholders in four rounds of work sessions. The process provided opportunities to: (1) find
ways to “work smarter” with existing resources; (2) match revised operations to existing resources; and (3)
identify the need for additional resources. A Working Group implemented the staffing analysis methodology
developed by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC).
ANALYZING INTERMITTENT ACTIVITIES (Page 10)
Levels of activity ebb and flow over the course of a day at MDC. While many functions are continuous, such as
supervising inmates, periodic health and welfare checks, maintaining the master control room, and providing
perimeter security, other activities are “intermittent”-- occurring less than 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These
intermittent activities have an impact on safety, security and operations and therefore have an impact on
staffing practices and needs. Appendix A presents the detailed activity schedules that were developed by the
Working Group, along with graphs that illustrate the variation of activity levels over a week. [Page A-23]
The Working Group identified changes in activity timing and operational methods that would increase efficiency.
These included: (1) delaying breakfast by at least two hours; (2) revising and refining the delivery of inmate
medications; and (3) revising the delivery of other services and programs to the units, including laundry,
commissary, visits, sick call, and processing new arrivals. These changes, when implemented, will increase safety
and security and improve staffing efficiency.
DEVELOPING A COVERAGE PLAN (Page 16)
A “coverage plan” describes the posts and positions that are to be staffed using precise start- and end-times.
The coverage plan does not rely on the current shift configurations (number of hours per shift, rotation of days
off) as the starting point. Rather, a coverage plan identifies specific tasks and activities that need to be staffed
and describes the precise start and end times, days of the week needed, and types of employees to be assigned.
From this, efficient schedules may be developed.
The lobby post illustrates the difference between a coverage plan and a staff schedule. In current staff schedule,
the lobby post is filled on the day and swing shifts—ending at 11 p.m. The coverage plan is more precise, ending
the post at 8 p.m. which is the time the lobby closes and the post no longer need to be staffed.
Participants identified many changes that would improve current practices, especially with regard to especially
with regard to safety and security. Several themes emerged during the work sessions, including:
•
•
•
Increasing safety and security throughout the facility
Centralizing functions that affect the entire complex, such as master control, escorts and movement,
rather than staffing these activities at the unit level
Creating specialized posts that require specific experience and/or training, such as master control
Concurrent with the implementation of this study, inmate classification and risk assessment practices were
improved.
Many proposed improvements were developed, including:
•
•
•
Administer and manage escort as a facility-wide function, not a unit-level activity
Revise the overall command structure to increase efficiency and consistency
Improve the effectiveness of staff supervision provided by lieutenants and sergeants- increase first line
supervision for employees
ii
•
•
•
•
•
Monitor actual deployment of personnel by shift (compare scheduled vs. delivered staffing)
Centralize employee scheduling to improve efficiency and consistency
Revise overtime procedures
Improve overtime record-keeping
Change current schedules to more efficiently deliver coverage needs
The creation of a centralized Security Unit is key to improving safety, security and efficiency. The proposed
Security Unit would include posts such as:
•
•
•
•
•
Corridor Officers (formerly covered in part by unit Rovers)
Main Corridor Officers (new)
Lobby, Main Security Sallyport
Kitchen (2) and Medical Security (3)
Loading dock area (new) and Perimeter (expanded to full time)
When these changes are analyzed, they represent a net increase of 963 correctional officer hours per week (5.7
posts staff 24/7). Figure ES.1 summarizes the math of the proposed changes.
Figure ES.1: Annual Correctional Officer Coverage Hours- Comparison
Current Practices
Proposed Unit Coverage
Proposed New Security Unit
Proposed Breaks
Proposed Escorts
Total Proposed
Difference
Percent Difference
Relieved Hours Per Week
12,280
Average 24/7 Posts
73.1
8,624
3,264
809
546
13,243
+963
+7.8%
51.3
19.4
4.8
3.3
78.8
+5.7
---
A new category of coverage that must be anticipated --and planned for—involves tasks come up unexpectedly,
but require staff attention. These include: emergency medical transports, hospital security duty, special
assignments, emergency events, mass arrest, power failure, emergency searches, mechanical failure, facility
search, suicide/attempted suicide, funerals, high risk court event, weather event, and more. These “details”
consume many employee hours during the year, and must be anticipated in the budgeting process. The one-onone and hospital posts alone required nearly 82,000 “extra” hours of coverage last year.
DELIVERING THE COVERAGE PLAN--- SCHEDULES (Page 53)
The coverage plans were developed without considering scheduling patterns. Schedules are a means to
implement coverage. Delivering the new coverage plans efficiently will require creative approaches to
scheduling in terms of: (1) Developing hybrid posts, in which an employee works for x hours at one location
and then moves on to another location; (2) Varying shift start times to correspond with actual demand for
service; (3) Staggering shift times to “ramp up” to meet demands; (4) Varying shift length to better fit
demands; (4) Selectively using overtime for a short period of time in lieu of creating an 8-hour or longer
post; and (5) Combining varied shift configurations.
NET ANNUAL WORK HOURS (NAWH) - The “Math” of Relieved Posts (Page 56)
The number of “net” hours an employee delivers on post varies each year. MDC has employed the NAWH for
several years with success. It is possible that the increased coverage hours described above may be largely offset
by increases in NAWH due to fewer new hires, lower turnover, and other factors.
Staffing Analysis/Operations Review
Metro Detention Center, Bernalillo Co. NM
February 2013
1
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)
February 2013
I. INTRODUCTION
In April, 2012, Bernalillo County officials commissioned a collaborative staffing analysis that would
provide opportunities to examine all aspects of the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), improving
effectiveness and, where possible, efficiency.
The process involved stakeholders in a series of four rounds of work sessions:
•
•
•
•
May 1-3
June 4-8
June 18-22
July 16-18
Several working group meetings were held during each round of site visits. When meetings were not
being conducted, the consultant interviewed officials and staff, observed operations, and researched
specific areas of concern. Appendix A presents the notes from each round of meetings as they were
distributed to all employees and other stakeholders for review and comment.
The process provided many opportunities to:
•
Find ways to “work smarter” with existing resources,
•
Match revised operations to existing resources, and
•
Identify the need for additional resources (facilities, technology, operations).
The process examined all aspects of current operations and identified opportunities to change policies,
practices, and the use of technology and facilities.
The principal consultant for the project was Rod Miller ([email protected]), who has headed the nonprofit organization CRS Inc. since he founded it in 1972. Rod is the principal author of the staffing
analysis process developed for the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). 1
1
Miller, Rod, John E. Wetzel and Dennis Liebert. Staffing Analysis Workbook for Jails. National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Washington D.C. First Edition 1987. Second Edition 2003. Third Edition 2012
(in final editing.) http://tbf.me/a/gnPxP
February 2013
2
II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
The NIC process provides many opportunities to discover new efficiencies and to explore creative
solutions throughout the staffing analysis process. It has been successfully used in jails throughout the
United States, as well as law enforcement agencies, various city and county departments, fire
departments, nursing homes, and other complex organizations.
Figure II-1 illustrates the nine steps of the staffing analysis process and briefly describes each step. The
nine sequential steps in the process were developed to be:
•
Comprehensive--examining all facets of operations and management.
•
Precise—counting and calculating a wide range of elements. The process creates a “chain of
evidence” between a dollar in the budget and an hour worked on the floor or in the field.
•
Creative—finding ways to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
•
Inclusive—providing employees and other stakeholders with meaningful opportunities to shape
the analysis and to review all draft findings and recommendations.
•
Cost Effective---tapping the experience and expertise of local officials and personnel, using
outside assistance to guide the process and bring the experience of other jurisdictions to the
table.
The staffing analysis process offers a unique opportunity to examine the “culture” of the organization
and its operations.
The NIC process provides perspective and invites participation by a wide range of persons. In recent
years, the staffing analysis process has proven to be a catalyst that helped agencies with serious
problems to re-invent their policies and practices from the ground up.
The staffing analysis process offers a unique opportunity to begin to change the culture of the
organization and its operations. The NIC process provides perspective and invites participation by a
wide range of persons.
Participation and Transparency
Many persons have a “stake” in the staffing analysis process. Stakeholders had opportunities
participate in the process, directly at the table as the analysis was completed, and through other
methods as draft findings were developed and made available to all employees and others who had an
interest.
Figure II-1: Nine Steps of the Staffing Analysis Process
February 2013
3
February 2013
III. PARTICIPATION
The process was anchored by a “Working Group” of officials, employees and other stakeholders. This
group participated in 12 work sessions, encompassing over 30 hours of effort. The Working Group
included:
Roseanne Gonzales
Ruben Padilla, Assistant Chief
Stephen Perkins, Lt., Union President, Shift Commander- Graves Shift
Ramon Rustin, Chief
At the end of each round of work, the consultant drafted a report and distributed it to the Working
Group for review and correction. These reports, and all of the work products drafted during this
process were distributed to all MDC employees through email and other methods. Stakeholders in
other agencies and organizations also received the drafts as they are developed.
Everyone was invited to review drafts and to contribute their comments, concerns and suggestions at
any time. Appendix A presents all of the Working Group reports.
4
February 2013
5
IV. Concerns
The first subject of discussion in the Working Group identified concerns that individuals brought to this
process. These covered a wide spectrum of issues. Concerns voiced by participants included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crowding- chronic acute crowding creates many problems
Safety and security—very poor. Do not feel safe when working
Not working as a team- uniformed v. non-uniformed
Sufficiency of staffing
Overtime—
o Costs
o Forced
o Stress
o Burnout
o Staff health/illness
o Staff turnover
Mechanisms for allocating overtime
Are there ratios that should be considered and applied? Staff to number of inmates in a pod?
“Special Projects”- “Details”—that take staff from essential posts to address a temporary need
One on One’s (inmates who require 1/1 supervision)
Inmates held in hospital—safety, security
Need to learn how to work “Smarter not Harder”
Posts that have been ‘added” on the fly, and are not anticipated in the budget or staffing plans
Lack of consistency of practices—policies/procedures not followed
Policies/procedures- not always there, often practice does not match what has been written
Civilian staff need to be protected, are not trained or authorized as security
Turnover
Pay scales and perceptions of pay adequacy
Use of overtime (OT) vs. regular hours-- OT becomes base pay
Major change in management philosophy (new Chief last year)
Abuse of sick leave
FMLA- Family Medical Leave Act
Sufficiency and effectiveness of training, pre- and post-assignment
Staff morale
Quality of staff—work ethic, attitudes, priorities
Perception that administration “blames the officers” unfairly
“Favoritism” – e.g. assignment to posts, happens in all divisions
Case managers ≠ security (civilians, not authorized to supervise inmates)
Increase in critical incidents (need to analyze critical incident data)
Classification section—no relief factor, salaried staff—work piles up
New Northpointe classification and COMPAS risk assessment systems will require more staff
February 2013
V. DESCRIBING AND ANALYZING THE CONTEXT (Step 1 of the NIC Process)
The first round of Working Group sessions (May 1 – 3) examined the “context” in which staffing is
implemented at MDC, producing outlines that described the context in terms of:
•
Changes that have occurred in the past five to ten years
•
Unique challenges posed to operations by—
o Facility design and condition
o Technology and equipment
o Standards and laws
o Policies and procedures
o Staff
o Other characteristics of the context
Participants identified many changes that have occurred in recent years.
Inmates
The characteristics of the inmate population—nearly 3,000 in custody at a given time—have been
changing in recent years:
•
Older (more over 50 years old)
•
Younger (more under the age of 25)
•
Not as accountable for their behavior
•
More of them- crowding is acute
•
More mental health issues
•
Litigious (MDC is under a continuing court case- McClendon)
•
More violent
•
More sexual predators
•
More gangs
•
More inmates who are “med-seekers”
•
More likely to file grievances
•
More have medical problems and needs
•
Receiving “coaching” from McClendon staff
•
Increased number of detoxification (400 – 700 detox/month)
•
More substance abuse problems- alcohol, drugs
•
More female inmates who are pregnant
Inmates pose more challenges, making operations increasingly complicated, difficult, and at times
more dangerous.
6
February 2013
7
Staff
The characteristics of MDC staff have changed in recent years, according to the Working Group:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New Chief, new management style
New Assistant Chief
New hires are younger, bring generational challenges
Staff “mentality” is changing, more fussy about OT and days off
Some employees “don’t need the job” because they live at home with their parent(s)
Different grooming practices, more piercings, tattoos
More likely to question authority and ask “why?”
Younger staff expect immediate gratification, perhaps due to technology
Younger staff tend to view employment as a shorter-term commitment, less likely to settle in
for a career
Older, more experienced employees have a harder time understanding how to motivate the younger
workforce.
Facility
MDC opened in December 2002. Located on a remote 155-acre site, the facility encompasses nearly
12 acres. The 2,236 MDC beds were filled within a few years after the facility opened. As of September
2012 daily occupancy was nearly 3,000, more than 30% above its intended capacity. Many housing
pods that were designed for 64 inmates house 50% more, approaching 100 inmates on an average day.
The sheer scale of the facility has many implications for operations and staff. Movement between units
and between major areas of the facility is time consuming because of the distances to be negotiated.
Figure V.1 shows the main corridor as view on a monitor in Main Control.
Figure V.1: Main Corridor as Shown on Monitor in Main Control
February 2013
8
The facility has been well maintained. The county has consistently invested in preventive maintenance
and has provided sufficient, qualified staff to make repairs. But maintenance is increasingly challenged
by the impact of crowding.
The facility design “decentralizes” many activities, services and programs, delivering them at the unit
level, and often within the housing pods. This reduces inmate movement, but requires a great deal of
movement of material and services to the housing units.
Figure V.2 presents an annotated floor plan for the facility, identifying primary secure corridors (red)
and major security doors (yellow stars).
Figure V.1: Major Circulation Corridors and Primary Security Doors
February 2013
9
Equipment and Technology.
Video systems allow for both remote visitation and arraignments, reducing the need to move inmates
outside of the facility. Participants identified several other changes in the use of technology:
•
Dialysis equipment is being acquired, reducing reliance on outside resources
•
Video surveillance system has been upgraded and replaced since the facility opened
•
Updates are planned for cameras
•
Electronic medical records have speeded-up med passes, but have slowed other processes
•
Computers have been provided to the officer station in each pod. These are “distracting” and
cause the officers to spend more time behind a desk, but the access to information is proving
helpful
•
Kiosks were installed in all housing pods during the course of this project. After an initial surge
of inmate use, demands on staff have eased
•
Bar codes/ bracelets are being implemented, and are characterized as “staff intensive” by some
•
Popcorn machines, video projectors and other equipment is increasingly used in housing pods,
especially in the new Honor Pods
Administration and Operations
There have been many changes with administration and operations:
•
Case managers have recently been relocated, decentralizing them into their respective units
•
More inmate programs, more types of programs
•
Many activities going on at one time
•
Staff feel less in control of operations
•
Some staff think that policies/procedures are outdated, unclear and/or missing
•
With crowded and expanded programming, some staff believe their safety has been diminished
•
“Unit management” is being redefined
•
Practices vary markedly from one unit to another, and sometimes from one shift to another
Summary
Many changes were identified by the participants at the beginning of the process. Few of these
changes have made operations, and therefore staffing, easier.
February 2013
VI. IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING INTERMITTENT ACTIVITIES (Step 2 of the NIC Process)
The level of activity at MDC ebbs and flows over the course of each day. While many functions are
continuous, such as inmate supervision, periodic health and welfare checks, maintaining the master
control room, and providing perimeter security, other activities are “intermittent,” occurring less than
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These intermittent activities have an impact on safety, security and
operations and therefore have an impact on staffing practices and needs.
Appendix A presents the detailed activity schedules that were developed by the Working Group, along
with graphs that illustrate the variation of activity levels over a 7 day week [Page A-23]. Excerpts from
these findings are presented here.
Unit-Level Activities
Many intermittent activities occur at the unit level because of the decentralization of programs and
services. Figure VI.1 describes the programs that are provided in Unit F.
Figure VI.1: Unit F Program Schedule
10
February 2013
11
Figure VI.2 illustrates the levels of activities in Fox Unit, caused by inmate programs and services. Note
that activity levels are much lower on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. But current Unit F correctional
staffing does not decline on those days.
Figure VI.2: Intermittent Activity Levels. Fox Unit (Monday – Sunday)
Totals: Monday - Sunday
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
20:00
16:00
08:00
Sun 12:00
04:00
20:00
Sun 00:00
16:00
08:00
Sat 12:00
04:00
20:00
Sat 00:00
16:00
08:00
Fri 12:00
04:00
20:00
Fri 00:00
16:00
08:00
Thu 12:00
04:00
20:00
Thu 00:00
16:00
08:00
Wed 12:00
04:00
20:00
Wed 00:00
16:00
08:00
Tue 12:00
04:00
20:00
Tue 00:00
16:00
08:00
Mon 12:00
04:00
Mon 00:00
0
Figure VI.3 provides a close-up of Unit F activity levels for Monday. Note that activities start at 0730
and continue, with minor variations, until 1930. Many of these activities continue through meals,
visiting and other activities and services, creating conflicts and additional movement.
Figure VI.3: Unit F Activity Levels, Mondays
12
10
8
6
4
2
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
0000
0
February 2013
12
Each unit has a unique constellation of programs, but current security staffing practices do not increase
and decrease to correspond to the activity levels.
Overall Facility Activity Levels
Overall operations also increase and decrease during the 24-hour day. Figure VI.4 shows the major
overall intermittent activities that were identified by the group.
Figure VI.4: Facility-Wide Intermittent Activities
Activity
Breakfast (current)
Breakfast (proposed)
Court Pulls, Prep for Transport
Lockdown Mornings
Shift Change Graves to Days
Visiting- Video, morning
Prof Visits
Inmates In Dayrooms (Unlocked)
Lunch (current)
Lunch (proposed)
Lockdown Afternoons
Shift Change Days to Swing
Visiting- Video, after./evening
Prof Visits
Dinner, Fri Sat
Dinner, except Fri Sat
Lockdown Nights
Shift Change Swing to Graves
Start
End
W
0300
0500
3
0500
0530
0630
0630
0800
0800
0800
0800
1100
1400
1430
1600
1600
1600
1730
1800
2200
2230
0630
0800
0800
0700
1330
1400
1400
0930
1230
1600
1500
1830
2000
2200
1800
1900
2400
2300
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sat
x
x
Sun
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The intermittent activities in Figure VI.4 were assigned a “weight” (from 1 to 3) suggesting the
magnitude of impact each activity had on overall jail operations. These are shown in the column
labeled “W.” Note that lockdowns (inmates returning to their cells for a period of time) resulted in a
lower weight than did the periods in which inmates were allowed in their dayrooms.
The Working Group noted the unusual scheduling of breakfast (0300) and lunch (0800). No one was
able to explain the reason for feeding breakfast and lunch to all inmates at such early hours. They
noted that some inmates have to be ready for transport to court at 0800, but that did not justify
disrupting the sleep of all inmates. The group proposed delaying breakfast by at least two hours, as
shown in Figure VI.4 (yellow highlights.)
February 2013
13
Figure VI.5 illustrates facility-wide activity levels for a week (Monday through Sunday). The current
schedule provides a very short period of “down” time during the late night/early morning.
Figure VI.5: Facility-Wide Activity Levels (Current). Monday – Sunday
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
20:30
17:00
13:30
10:00
06:30
03:00
23:30
20:00
16:30
13:00
09:30
06:00
02:30
23:00
19:30
16:00
12:30
09:00
05:30
02:00
22:30
19:00
15:30
08:30
Thu 12:00
05:00
01:30
22:00
18:30
15:00
11:30
08:00
04:30
01:00
21:30
18:00
14:30
11:00
07:30
04:00
00:30
21:00
17:30
14:00
10:30
07:00
03:30
Mon 00:00
0
Figure VI.6 illustrates 7-day activity levels with the proposed changes in serving times for breakfast and
lunch for Monday, providing more “down time” in the early morning during which there is virtually no
activity.
Figure VI.6: Facility-Wide Activity Levels with Proposed Revisions- Breakfast, Lunch
6
5
4
3
2
1
30
22
00
21
30
19
00
18
30
16
00
15
30
13
00
12
30
10
00
09
30
07
00
06
30
04
00
03
30
01
00
00
0
February 2013
Combined Activity Levels, Unit and Facility-Wide
The facility-wide activities intersect with unit-level activities, as shown in Figure VI.7.
Figure VI.7: Facility-Wide Activities and Fox Unit Activities, Seven Days (Side by Side)
12
10
8
6
4
e
2
M
on
00
:0
M
0
on
12
:0
0
Tu
e
00
:0
0
Tu
e
12
:0
W
0
ed
00
:0
W
0
ed
12
:0
0
Th
u
00
:0
0
Th
u
12
:0
0
Fr
i0
0:
00
Fr
i1
2:
00
S
at
00
:0
0
S
at
12
:0
0
S
un
00
:0
0
S
un
12
:0
0
0
Overall
Programs
The combined impact of intermittent activities is illustrated in Figure VI.8, which adds the facility-wide
and unit-specific activities. Figure VI.9 provides a close-up for Monday.
Figure VI.8: Combined Facility-Wide and Unit Activity Levels (Stacked)
14
February 2013
Figure VI.7: Facility-Wide and Unit Activities, Stacked, Monday
18
16
14
12
10
8
Overall
6
Programs
4
0
Mon 00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
Mon 12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
2
Current unit programs conflict with facility-wide activities in several key ways. Unit programs are
scheduled at the same time as:
•
•
•
•
•
Lunch meal
Shift changes (Graves to Days, Days to Swing)
Housing pod lockdown (afternoon)
Visiting
Professional visits
As the Working Group moved into the next step in the process, three major changes were
recommended:
1. Revise meal schedule
2. Revise/refine delivery of inmate medications in terms of timing, coordination with other
activities, breaks, number of medication carts and more
3. Revise/refine delivery of other services and programs to the units, including but not limited to
laundry, commissary, visits, sick call, and new arrivals
These changes, when implemented, will increase safety, security and staffing efficiency.
15
February 2013
16
VII. DEVELOPING A COVERAGE PLAN
The third round of Working Group meetings primarily focused on developing a “coverage plan” for
relieved posts and positions. A “coverage plan” is not the same as a schedule, which assigns individual
employees to specific times and days of work. A coverage plan is similar to the “Unit Staffing” summary
that describes the posts and positions that are to be staffed on each shift.
But the coverage plan does not rely on the current shift configurations (number of hours per shift,
rotation of days off) as the starting point. Rather, a coverage plan identifies specific tasks and activities
that need to be staffed and describes:
•
•
•
Start time and end time
Days of the week needed
Type of employee to be assigned
The lobby post illustrates the difference. In the Unit Staffing plan, the lobby post is filled on the day
and swing shifts—ending at 11 p.m. The coverage plan is more accurate, showing the End Time for the
post as 8 p.m., which is the actual time the post is closed.
A. Current Relieved Staffing Practices
As a baseline, current coverage practices are illustrated in Figure VII.1 and are described in Figure
VII.2. Most current relieved coverage falls into the three 8-hour shifts-- Days (0700 - 1500), Swing
(1500 - 2300) and Graves (2300 - 0700). Figure VII.3 identifies the few variations.
FigureVII.1: Graph of Current Relieved Coverage Practices, 7 Days
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
M
on
00
:0
M
0
on
12
:0
Tu
0
e
00
:0
Tu
0
e
12
:0
W
0
ed
00
:0
W
0
ed
12
Th :00
u
00
:0
Th
0
u
12
:0
0
Fr
i0
0:
00
Fr
i1
2:
00
Sa
t0
0:
S a 00
t1
2
Su :00
n
00
:0
Su
0
n
12
:0
0
0
Figure VII.2: Current Relieved Coverage Practices
(7 days/week except those marked with * which are [M – F])
February 2013
17
February 2013
18
B. Evaluating and Revising Coverage Practices
To help "get out of the box" that is defined by current practices, the Working Group looked at coverage
needs by function, not unit, focusing on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supervising inmates in housing pods
Supervising inmates when they are not in housing units (visits, medical, programs, etc.)
Supervising movement of inmates and others
Delivering programs and services
Controlling access and egress (lobby, perimeter, etc.)
Ensuring safety and security at all times
Providing breaks for employees
Supervising employees
This approach yielded many new ideas and approaches, which are summarized in the following pages.
C. Overall Themes
Participants discussed many changes that should be considered in current practices, which leave a lot
to be desired with regard to safety and security. Several "themes" emerged during the work sessions”
•
Increase safety and security throughout the facility
•
Centralize functions that affect the entire complex, such as master control, escorts and
movement, rather than staffing these activities at the unit level
•
Create specialized posts that require specific experience and/or training, such as master control
•
Approach coverage in some areas as a "zone" rather than moving post, keeping officers in their
designated areas, not in other parts of the facility
Concurrent with the implementation of this study, major improvements were being implemented with
inmate classification and management. The agency has made a commitment to develop a broader
“inmate behavior management” system that offers incentives for all inmates, not just those in the
Honor Pods. Assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is being secured. As
classification processes are improved, it is essential to assign inmates to pods based on their
classification.
Many of the specific proposed changes described in the following narrative are consistent with these
themes.
February 2013
19
D. Summary of Proposed Changes
Drafting the coverage plan required examining current policies, procedures and practices. Participants
were encouraged to question current practices when there were opportunities to improve
effectiveness or efficiency. Many changes were proposed, in three primary categories:
1. Timing--when activities and tasks are implemented
2. Practices- how activities and tasks are implemented
3. Administration- how activities and tasks are administered and supervised
Major proposals are summarized in the following list, followed by narrative that explains the proposals
in more detail.
1. Timing- When Implemented
Three major changes in timing were described at the end of Section VI (Activities):
•
Revise meal schedule
•
Revise/refine delivery of inmate medications in terms of timing, coordination with other
activities, breaks, number of medication carts and more
•
Revise/refine delivery of other services and programs to the units, including but not limited
to laundry, commissary, visits, sick call, and new arrivals
The second and third changes will require careful study and coordination. Currently, these tasks often
conflict with each other at the housing pod level. It is not unusual to see a laundry delivery wait for 30
minutes outside a housing pod while medications are being distributed Coordination is currently
difficult because the administration of these activities is fragmented. Proposed changes in the
administration and supervision of coverage, described later in this report, will address such
inefficiencies.
2. Practices-- How Implemented
The Working Group generated many proposed changes in the way that functions are implemented,
including:
Housing Pods
•
Provide a second Pod Officer for two pods in Unit E for day and swing shifts. The assignment of
these two extra officers to specific pods will be flexible. This is in response to the increasing
number of incidents. These officers will be available for other tasks away from the pod during
lockdowns.
•
Provide pod officers with better control of doors
•
Add a third officer in Seg 2 and Seg 8 for specific times during the day
•
Eliminate the two Rovers currently deployed 24/7 in each housing unit
February 2013
20
Safety and Security
•
Provide for escort of high security inmates and females
•
Create new "Unit Corridor" post responsible for supervision of the corridors within the unit, and
ensure that the officer does not leave the unit
•
Create specialized posts that require specific experience and/or training, such as master control
•
Provide officer to secure the rear loading dock area for many hours of the day-- an officer
should be present whenever there is activity at the loading dock area
•
Assign an officer to patrol the perimeter at all times
•
Post officers in the main corridor to observe all movement, to challenge inmates (and others as
needed) to confirm that all movement is authorized
•
Staff Main Control with 3 specialized officers on the day and swing shifts, and 2 specialized
officers on the graves shift
•
Periodically review the number of beds needed for disciplinary segregation and adjust as
needed
•
Add a second K9 unit (dog and handler)
•
Acquire additional security equipment, such as a body scanner
•
Assign an officer to each medication cart
•
Provide an officer to escort and secure other functions that go to the housing pods, including
meals, laundry, commissary, counts, visits, sick call, programs and new arrivals
•
Ensure that immediate back up is available to the scene of an incident
•
Develop supplementary security team(s), to be carefully defined
•
Manage the response to each incident to reduce the risk posed to other areas of the facility
Efficiency
•
Refine the hours of operation for the lobby post
•
Centralize coverage for employee breaks (eliminate "rovers")
•
Assign one or two officers to Shift Commander to deploy as needed
•
Provide one-on-one supervision by non-security personnel (a variety of approaches have been
identified)
•
Evaluate the advisability of using civilians in visiting and the front lobby
•
Evaluate whether any inmates should be assigned to the warehouse
•
February 2013
21
Approach coverage in some areas as a "zone" rather than moving post, keeping officers in their
designated areas, not in other parts of the facility (unit corridor security officer, for example)
3. Administration- How Administered and Supervised
The following proposed changes address the structure of the organization and provisions to effectively
supervise employees.
•
Centralize functions that affect the entire complex, such as master control, escorts and
movement, rather than staffing these activities at the unit level
•
Administer and manage escort as a facility-wide function, not a unit-level activity
•
Revise overall command structure to increase efficiency and consistency
•
Improve effectiveness of staff supervision provided by lieutenants and sergeants- increase first
line supervision for employees.
•
Monitor actual deployment of personnel by shift (compare scheduled vs. delivered)
•
•
•
Improve record-keeping for overtime
•
Consider changes in the current schedule, based on revised coverage needs
E. More Detail About Proposed Changes
Some of the proposed changes are explained in more detail in the following narrative. These include:
1. Whether to add a second officer to the crowded housing pods
2. Revise/refine delivery of inmate medications
3. Revise/refine delivery of other items and services to housing pods
4. Implementing "One-on-One" supervision of inmates
5. Providing breaks to employees
6. Controlling and supervising movement
7. Providing "Backup"/ responding to incidents
8. Bolstering security, reducing contraband
9. Security team/ utility squads
10. Command and staff supervision
11. Other issues
February 2013
22
Changes in coverage practices are illustrated later in this report, along with calculation of changes in
staff hours needed to implement the proposed coverage plan.
1. Whether to Add a Second O0fficer to the Crowded Housing Pods
Experts agree that adding a second officer seriously dilutes the effectiveness of supervision in the pod.
Prof. Richard Wener, one of the longstanding researchers on direct supervision, reported there were
no studies on the question, but shared the comments of many practitioners with whom he has worked:
don’t add a second officer. David Parrish, a well-respected veteran administrator, was also adamant
about not adding a second officer, citing his own experience and the opinions offered by others with
whom he had worked over the years. Several other nationally-known jail experts were consulted, with
the same finding. The NIC Information Center shared the information that it had on the subject, which
was limited. Tom Reid, a specialist who has been with NIC, the Academy, and the Information Center
for nearly 40 years, confirmed the opinions of the practitioners—avoid adding a second officer.
One of the experts shared a story from Larry Ard, a pioneer of direct supervision. It went something
like this: "Give me one officer and I have one officer. Give me two officers and I have a one-half of an
officer. Give me three officers and I have no officers."
Recommendation: Deal with the stress and distractions caused by pod crowding by selectively
adding officers to handle specific tasks. This leaves the pod officer free to supervise the entire
housing unit, while ensuring effective supervision of the activity while it is occurring in the pod.
Extra staff would be needed for the following tasks and situations in a housing pod:
•
•
•
•
Food distribution and pickup
Medication pass
Laundry pick up and distribution
Activities that require two officers due to security classification of inmate (such as red shirts)
When an extra officer comes into a pod for one of these purposes, the pod officer would have the
option of assigning the additional officer to the task, or asking the officer to supervise the general
population while the pod officer takes care of the task. Some pod officers have said that they gain
insights from activities such as laundry exchange and they would like have to option to cover the
activity or the entire pod.
This approach will not only prove to be the most effective, it is by far the most cost-efficient because it
selectively adds staff when needed, but no longer than needed. Adding a second officer for the hours
February 2013
23
inmates are out of their cells (two shifts) would require 16 hours of coverage for each housing pod. 2
Providing officers for specific tasks will require approximately 4 hours a day, and possibly less on
weekends.
2. Revise/Refine Delivery of Inmate Medications
Delivering medications to inmates to their housing units is one of the primary activities for which
additional coverage is needed. The working group suggests assigning an officer to each medication
cart, easing the distraction that this activity imposes on housing pod officers.
The timing and logistics of medication delivery should be revisited in terms of:
•
Timing of medications with regard to meals (some meds need to be delivered before meals,
some with meals, some between meals)
•
Coordination of medication delivery with shift changes and lockdowns (some participants
suggested that lockdowns should be used, in part, for medication delivery)
•
Coordination of medication delivery with staff break schedules
•
Increasing the number of medication carts that are in use at one time, thereby reducing the
time span needed to deliver medications-- in effect "concentrating" the timing of medication
delivery
•
Where and how medications are distributed within the housing pod (e.g. use "pill window" or
other location)
3. Revise/Refine Delivery of Other Items and Services to Housing Pods
Several key activities occur at the housing pod level, bringing material and personnel inside the pod for
a period of time. These include, but are not limited to:
•
Meals
•
Laundry
•
Commissary
•
Visits (several types)
•
Sick Call
•
Programs
•
New Arrivals
Approximately 24 housing pods do not have 2 officers during the Day and Swing shifts. Adding a second officer to each of
these pods, for those two shifts, would require more than 140,000 additional officer hours per year, the equivalent of 87.6
full time officers.
2
February 2013
24
Each of these functions should also be reviewed and revised as needed to improve security and
efficiency. Crowding in housing pods must be addressed with additional staffing, but the working group
suggests that staffing be brought with activities rather than adding another post to the pod. When any
of these functions create a distraction for the pod officer, another officer should be brought with the
function to ensure that security does not suffer.
As possible, these functions should work "around" the hours during which breaks are provided to staff.
4. Implementing “One-on-One” Supervision of Inmates
Providing staff to supervise "1 on 1’s" (1/1) proves very difficult. In the week before the meeting, there
was many as 12 1/1 supervisions occurring at the same time. Over the course of a year, over 27,000
hours of 1/1 supervision may be needed. 3 These are currently staffed by correctional officers, and this
practice is proving to be very difficult.
Many 1/1’s are initiated in the middle of a shift. Shift commanders are able to hold officers over from a
previous shift to staff 1/1’s that are in effect at shift change, or that are predicted. But once the
holdovers have been released, there is no other source of staffing. This usually means that the shift
supervisor has to take an officer from another post and reassign him/her to the 1/1—leaving a vacancy
in a required post. Typically, an officer in a housing pod that has two officers is diverted to the 1/1.
Participants questioned why it was necessary to use officers for this function. They noted that the
primary purpose of the 1/1 is to “detect” any behavior that is dangerous to the inmate. “Response” to
such events is provided by other staff (security and/or medical). Participants suggested looking into
using:
•
UNM civilians
•
Interns
•
LPNs
•
Nursing pool (tried before)
•
Volunteer or paid civilians who are on call
Chief Rustin described programs in other counties that used trained inmates to provide 1/1
supervision, a practice was pioneered in Massachusetts in the 1980’s.
The medical contractor suggested that it would be possible to amend the CHC contract to provide 1/1
supervision, noting that an LPN nursing pool had been used in the past as part of the overall medical
contract.
Based on a sampling of shift reports, an average of 3.1 employees are needed for every shift to provide one-on-one
supervision. Better data collection and analysis protocols should be developed to inform future budgets.
3
February 2013
25
There was also discussion of altering the facility to make it possible for one officer to effectively
supervise more than one inmate at the same time. Investing in doors and windows that would open
up views into more than one cell might pay long term staffing dividends. Such renovations have proven
cost-effective in other facilities.
Participants also expressed concerns about the way that inmates use feigned suicide threats to
improve their conditions of confinement.
5. Providing Breaks to Employees
Another example of the need to define coverage before creating schedules is found in the need to
provide breaks for staff during their shifts. Many employees are entitled to two 30-minute breaks, or
one 1-hour break during their 8-hour shift. But the first breaks may not start until 90 minutes into the
shift, and breaks should end before the last hour of the shift. It is an activity that must occur in a 5.5
hour period within the shift, as illustrated in Figure VII.3.
Figure VII.3: Time Frame for Employee Breaks
Minutes Into 8-Hour Shift
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480
Allowable Time Frame for Breaks During Shift
Staff breaks for housing pod officers are currently provided by the two “Rovers” who are assigned to
each unit. This arrangement means that for most of each shift, the Rovers are tied to a fixed post for
which they are providing a break, usually in a housing pod, and are not available to supervise
movement and provide security within the unit.
The Working Group concluded that there is a need for continuous security of all interior corridors in
each unit. To accomplish this, Rovers should not be responsible for providing breaks. Further, the
Rovers should not be asked (or allowed) to leave the unit to escort inmates in other areas of the
facility. Rovers need to be present in the unit continuously during their shifts. When they need to be on
break, they must be relieved. Rather than trying to redefine the function of the Rovers, the Working
Group recommends creating a new “Corridor Officer" post.
There appears to be a great deal of "slippage" when it comes to providing breaks for employees who
are assigned to relieved posts. Housing pod officers are the largest single group of employees who
need to be provided with breaks.
Figure VII.4 illustrates the timing and the volume of activity needed to provide breaks to officers who
are working in housing units. The columns at the bottom of the graph show the number of officers
February 2013
needed to provide breaks during each shift, and more important, the timing of the breaks within the
shift.
Figure VII.4: Breaks for Relieved Posts in Housing Units
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Mon 00:00
0.25
Mon 12:00
0.75
Tue 00:00
1.25
Tue 12:00
1.75
Wed 00:00
2.25
Wed 12:00
2.75
Thu 00:00
3.25
Thu 12:00
3.75
Fri 00:00
4.25
Fri 12:00
4.75
Sat 00:00
5.25
Sat 12:00
5.75
Sun 00:00
6.25
Sun 12:00
6.75
0
By recording specific coverage needs, for only the times they are needed, efficiencies may be
discovered through creative post construction and employee scheduling, later in the process.
The Working Group recommends managing breaks as a facility-wide function, not by unit. Because
breaks should not be provided in the first 90 minutes or last 60 minutes of a shift, the break relief
officers will have 2.5 hours per shift 4 available to provide needed escort and supervision of activities
such as meal service, medications, and laundry. Careful staging of such activities, to dovetail with the
break schedule, will ensure efficient use of employee time.
Implementing this change will redefine the role of the "Rovers" who are currently providing breaks
during a portion of their shifts. This change is described in the following pages, along with many other
proposed improvements in current practices.
Assuming an 8-hour shift. It is likely that creative scheduling will present efficiencies for delivering breaks at the correct
times.
4
26
February 2013
27
6. Controlling and Supervising Movement
Movement is not adequately controlled. Major security doors are chronically left open, allowing staff,
civilians and inmates to move between units and other areas of the facility without asking Main
Control for access. The main corridor of the facility is not staffed as a post. Major interior corridors
within the units are allegedly staffing by Rovers, but they are rarely on the scene in these corridors.
The Working Group proposes the creation of three posts during peak hours of activity (two when
activities are lower) in the Main Corridor. The number of posts would vary based on time of day and
the amount of movement. These posts would be responsible for supervising all movement in the main
corridor, and would provide a secondary source of response to incidents.
Provisions must be also be made to provide escort for:
•
High security inmates (red shirts)
•
Females
Escort activities should be administered and managed as a facility-wide function, not a unit-level
activity. This will improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Eliminate Rovers/Create Unit Corridor Posts 5. The Rover posts should be eliminated. The break
functions of those posts should be provided as a centralized, facility-wide activity.
The new Corridor Officer should only be absent from the unit when relieved for his/her break. In this
way, movement within each unit will be continuously supervised and a first-responder will be readily
available to assist with incidents.
7. Providing "Backup"/ Responding to Incidents
Response to incidents and emergencies is currently too “robust.” The number of employees who
respond when a code is called usually exceeds the number of employees needed to control the
incident. Currently, anyone who wants to run to an incident is free to do so. As a result, incident scenes
are often crowded by well-intentioned employees who are often not needed. Some become witnesses
who are then required to be interviewed and/or to write reports. Those who were on break disrupt the
break cycle, creating a domino effect on posts throughout the facility as the relief process is
interrupted and delayed.
The current practice, which relies on response from employees who are on breaks, is the result of a
shortage of officers whose posts and duties are outside of a housing pod. For example, there are
Rovers assigned to each unit, supposedly providing security in the unit corridors. In practice, these
5
It is important to note that the term "Rover" does not appear anywhere in the 150+ pages of Chapter 8 of the
policy and procedure manual (Security and Control).
February 2013
28
officers are often not present in the corridors because they are providing breaks to pod officers, or are
escorting inmates outside of the unit.
Current practices are not only inefficient, they are arguably ineffective because the number and types
of employees who respond may cause problems at the incident site by their sheer numbers. Staff
intentions and concern are commendable, but the results create many problems.
Responses must be managed in order to:
•
Ensure the response force matches the nature of the event—enough, but not too much
•
Avoid leaving major areas of the facility without coverage and/or backup (inmates know current
response practices and could easily create a diversion in one part of the facility)
•
Reduce interference with staff break schedules (currently, many responders are employees
who are on a break, and their response results in an extension of the break, failure to return to
their primary post on time, and disruption of continuity)
•
Reduce the number of employees who must write reports after the event
There is no effective management of current response practices. There does not appear to be a policy
and procedure that directs responses to most incidents and their management. 6 The closest policy that
addresses the majority of incidents ("disturbance") is Policy 8.31, Riot/Disturbance. The text of this
policy does not define a process for assessing the incident and managing the response.
The proposed change in the management of breaks, and the provision of a continuous Corridor Officer
in each unit, will provide the first line of response to incidents that occur within a unit. The Corridor
Officers will be readily available to move to the incident , to assess it and call for additional help if
needed, and to be responsible for after-action reporting. Proposed improvements in first line
supervision should also provide readily-available backup throughout the facility, in the form of a
supervisor who is qualified and authorized to manage the response.
The proposed changes in security staffing practices will also provide readily-available personnel to
effect an emergency evacuation if needed, consistent with policies.
8. Bolstering Security, Reducing Contraband
Inmate-on-inmate assaults have increased markedly. Crowding has diluted the effectiveness of housing
and other officers. Security practices are very lax throughout the complex. Exterior/perimeter security
is intermittent and there are major areas, such as the rear loading docks, that have no assigned
security staff.
6
A few specific events are addressed in policies in procedures, such as bomb threat, escape, riot/disturbance,
fire, hostage, employee work stoppage, hunger strike, and mass arrests.
February 2013
29
Major security doors are not closed or locked, allowing unchecked movement between, and within the
interior corridors of the housing units.
During one site visit, the consultant walked into every unit and passed every pod entry and program
room door. By the time this process was finished he had encountered only two employees in the unit
corridors, and they were on their way to another location. No security doors were closed into the units
nor in the interior corridors of each unit. On the other hand, the consultant encountered many low
security inmates (blue men) throughout the facility, none of whom were supervised. They were also
able to move through the units at will.
A renewed commitment must be made to security in all areas, in all forms. Major doors should be
closed and locked. Main Control must be central to allowing movement in the main corridor and from
the main corridor into any other area. This will not be convenient. This will slow things down, but this is
necessary.
Perimeter security must be improved, including the provision of supervision at the rear loading dock
area and frequent perimeter patrols.
Participants voiced the need to be more proactive—preventing contraband rather than just trying to
find it after it has been introduced. Similarly, more aggressive drug testing, beyond the tests for the
Honor Pods, was suggested.
Effective security requires consistent attention by all personnel. Policies and procedures must be
implemented as written. Put another way, current policies must be enforced. Security doors are not
effective if they are left open.
Developing and implementing consistent security practices will require effective first-line supervision.
Sergeants must observe operations, reinforce good practices and correct improper practices. This must
be accomplished on the floor, not in an office (more about that later in this report.)
Several changes in current practices and deployment have been suggested:
•
An officer is needed to secure the rear loading dock area for several hours of the day-- an
officer should be present whenever there is activity at the loading dock area
•
Officers should be posted in the main corridor to observe all movement, to challenge inmates
(and others as needed), and to confirm that all movement is authorized
Participants also discussed the possibility of have one or two officers who would be assigned to the
Shift Commander to be deployed as needed, reducing his/her reliance on unit staff.
There was also some discussion about the need for additional security equipment, such as a body
scanner.
February 2013
30
9. Security Team / Utility Squad
There was a great deal of discussion during the Working Group meetings about creating some sort of
"security team" or "utility squad" that would be tasked with a variety of duties, including:
•
Implementing shakedowns
•
Conducting investigations (incidents)
•
Monitoring ongoing security practices (e.g. securing doors, supervising movement) and develop
reports for every unit
•
Expanding Security Threat Group (STG) capabilities
•
Responding to incidents and emergencies
The preceding list presents a mix of functions that are not necessarily compatible. For example, a
security team involved with a shakedown is not going to be available to respond to an incident.
Several of the functions involve investigation, intended to reduce reliance on the Sheriff's personnel.
These will require specialized training, and there will also be a need for cross-training.
Based on the discussions and subsequent deliberations, staffing for the security team was suggested to
be:
•
Mix of 10 sergeants and officers on Days
•
Mix of 10 sergeants and officers on Swings
•
Lieutenant to supervise the team on Days and Swings
There was frequent confusion about the status of some of these functions-- whether these would be
relieved posts or non-relieved positions. The decision was made to provide these as non-relieved
positions, allowing officers flexibility in coordinating their schedules and days off.
This team would, in part, be an expansion of the current STG (Security Threat Group) team, which is
comprised of two non-relieved officers working Days. These officers have estimated that they are
currently handling only 20% of the actual workload associated with effective STG and proactive
security practices.
In addition to the functions outlined above, there has also been discussion of having this group:
•
Run stings
•
Investigate "leads"
•
Monitor phone calls
•
Check mail/read mail
February 2013
31
10. Command and Staff Supervision
During the last round of meetings, many concerns were expressed with regard to the current
command structure. 7 The following operational concerns have been voiced, some of which may be
directly linked to the current structure:
•
Varied practices from unit to unit
•
Lack of compliance with facility policies
•
Erratic staffing and deployment practices
•
Scheduling problems, including inconsistent scheduling
•
Conflict between Shift Command and the Unit Captains
•
Inconsistent monitoring and enforcement of sick leave policies
Under the current structure, there is no "unit" or commander responsible for, and having authority
over, the entire facility. Everything is currently compartmentalized. Functions that in other agencies
are usually under a centralized "security" command are divided between the units, such as main
control, perimeter and inmate workers. In addition to inconsistent practices, the current fragmentation
creates many "seams" in operations over which there is no centralized authority.
Security is a system-wide issue that requires a unified response. All security functions—starting with
the Corridor Officers and including Main Control, should managed by the newly-created Major. This
division should also be responsible for providing employee breaks, supervising inter-unit activities such
as meals and medications, responding to incidents and providing professional investigative and
preventive services.
Many of the employees who would staff this division are already working as Pod Rovers, Control Room
Officers, and in other roles. These employees are currently scheduled and supervised at the unit level.
This has not proven effective or efficient. Current staffing will be enhanced by the efficiencies that will
be realized by this restructuring. But additional staff effort will also be needed to improve safety and
security.
The proposed restructuring will invest responsibility for facility security in the new division. Unit
managers will focus on supervising inmates in their housing units and on the programs and activities
that occur within the unit.
7
Over the course of this project, the consultant has observed confusion about the definition of "unit management"
and the extent to which the current unit managers (Captains in PAC/HSU, RDT, Units D-E-F-Seg, Transport/CCP
and Internal Affairs) have authority over policies, procedures and deployment. This confusion is a major
contributor to the inconsistency of practices throughout the facility.
February 2013
32
Lieutenants
Many concerns have been expressed about the current situation with lieutenants. It has been asserted
that:
•
There are not enough lieutenants on the current roster
•
Those who are on the roster and not supervising subordinates effectively (tied down with
administrative duties)
•
Some lieutenant positions have been (are being) reclassified
•
Some lieutenant positions are being reassigned
•
There are many vacancies in the lieutenant cadre
•
Use of lieutenant positions varies markedly from unit to unit
The working group was concerned that effective supervision starts from the top. Just as captains must
effectively supervise lieutenants, it is essential that lieutenants provided effective supervision of
sergeants, who are the first-line supervisors.
First-Line Supervision (Sergeants)
Although the current organizational chart shows two sergeants for each major housing unit, actual
practices vary:
•
Sergeant positions are not fully relieved, creating temporary vacancies on a shift or the need for
an officer to "work up" as a sergeant
•
One sergeant in each housing unit is typically mired in administrative duties and does not
provide supervision of officers or other employees
•
Supervision of line staff in the housing units falls to one sergeant-- on a good day-- who may be
absent and not relieved, or who may be sidetracked with other duties
•
On paper, sergeants are available as first responders to incidents, and to manage incident
response, but current practices do not consistently provide sufficient staffing nor availability for
that to happen
Good supervision starts at the top. Lieutenants should be providing effective supervision of sergeants
to ensure they are implementing policies correctly and consistently. This is not happening.
11.
February 2013
33
Other Issues
Several other issues were identified and/or explored during the Working Group meetings, including:
•
Concerns about current overtime procedures which create extra work for shift commanders
and give employees too much "choice" regarding accepting an overtime slot based on where
they would be assigned 8
•
Record-keeping for overtime that is flawed because it "charges" the overtime to the sending
unit rather than the receiving unit
•
Current scheduling practices that should be reviewed and revised in response to new coverage
needs
F. ILLUSTRATING PROPOSED CHANGES IN RELIEVED COVERAGE
The preceding pages identified many proposed changes in MDC practices. This section of the report
illustrates how these changes will look “on the floor” in terms of relieved posts. As a starting point,
Figure VII.5 identifies the housing pod posts that need to be staffed.
Figure VII.5: Location of Housing Pod Posts
The current process prohibits any formal activity to fill known and anticipated vacancies on a shift, until the preceding
shift. Although employees may state their interest in a shift, they are not contacted until the preceding shift. Even absences
that are known and scheduled weeks ahead of time are not addressed until hours before they occur.
8
February 2013
34
Figure VII.6 illustrates the proposed approach to security coverage: unit corridor officers, main corridor
officers, loading dock and perimeter officers.
Figure VII.6: Proposed Security Coverage, Unit Corridors, Main Corridor, Loading
Dock and Perimeter
Figure VII.7 shows the individual relieved posts that are proposed for the hours during which inmates
are out of their cells (generally Days and Swing). The “P” and “PP” posts are housing pod officers, who
would continue to be a part of their respective units (P is one officer, PP is two officers.)
February 2013
The “S” posts are focused on security and would be a part of the new centralized security division.
Several types of security posts are shown:
•
•
•
•
•
Corridor Officers (formerly covered in part by unit Rovers)
Main Corridor Officers (new)
Lobby, Main Security Sallyport (next to Control)
Kitchen (2) and Medical Security (3)
Loading dock area (new) and Perimeter (expanded to full time)
The “M” posts (Main Control) would also be part of the security division.
Figure VII.7: Housing Pod and Security Posts, Days/Swings
35
February 2013
G. PROPOSED RELIEVED COVERAGE PLAN
1. Correctional Officers
This section of the report presents the proposed relieved coverage plan as compared to current
relieved coverage practices. Changes in current practices are identified along with new practices and
posts. Figure VII.8 presents the key for the tables that follow.
Figure VII.8: Key for Changes in Current Coverage Practices
Key
Moved to New Security Division
Deleted/Eliminated
New
Figure VII.9 illustrates current coverage practices for Unit D and identifies the elements that would be
deleted or moved to the new security division.
Figure VII.9: Proposed Changes to Current Unit D Relieved Coverage Practices
Code
Number
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D18
D19
D11
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
Post or
Description
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Rover
Rover
KP1
KP2
Detail
BCCT
BCCT
MATS
Sewing
Recycling
Recycling
Start
Time
(00002400)
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0600
0700
0700
0700
End Time
(00002400)
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
1500
1500
1800
1500
1500
1500
Employee
Classification
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sa
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
36
February 2013
Figure VII.10 illustrates current coverage practices for Units E and F and identifies the elements that
would be deleted or moved to the new security division.
Figure VII.10: Proposed Changes to Current Units E and F Relieved Coverage Practices
Code
Number
Post or
Description
Start
Time
(00002400)
End
Time
(00002400)
Employee
Classification
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
E1
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E2
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E3
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E4
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E5
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E6
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E7
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E8
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F1
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F2
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F3
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F4
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F5
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F6
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F7
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F8
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F10
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F13
Rover
Master
Control 1
Master
Control 2
Master
Control 3
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F14
Perimeter
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F11
F12
Key
Deleted/Eliminated
New
37
February 2013
38
Figure VII.11 illustrates current coverage practices for the Seg (S) and HSU Units, identifying the
elements that would be deleted or moved to the new security division.
Figure VII.11: Proposed Changes to Current Seg (S) and HSU Units Relieved Coverage Practices
Code
Number
SI1
SI2
SI3
SI4
SI5
SI6
SI7
SI8
SI9
SI10
SI11
SI12
SI13
SI14
SI17
SI18
HSU1
HSU2
HSU3
HSU4
HSU5
HSU6
HSU7
HSU8
HSU9
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU11
HSU12
Post or
Description
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Rover
Rover
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Chemical (12s)
Rover
Rover
Rover-Medical
Infirmary/Medical
Infirmary/Medical
Start
Time
(00002400)
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0700
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
End
Time
(00002400)
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2300
2300
2300
1900
2400
2400
1500
2400
2400
Key
---------------
Deleted/Eliminated
New
Employee
Classification
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sa
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
February 2013
39
Figure VII.12 illustrates current coverage practices for the RDT, identifying the elements that would be
deleted or moved to the new security division.
Figure VII.11: Proposed Changes to Current RDT Relieved Coverage Practices
Code
Number
Post or
Description
Start
Time
End
Time
Employee
Classif.
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
RDT1
Release 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT2
Release 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT4
Processing
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT5
Male Floor
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT6
Female Floor
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT8
Arraignment1
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT9
Arraignment2
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT10
Arraignment3
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT11
ID
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT12
LEA
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT14
RDT13
Shuttle Officer
Lobby
0000
0700
2400
2300
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Key
Deleted/Eliminated
New
Figure VII.12 summarizes the 11 deleted posts, all of which are “rovers.”
Figure VII.12: Summary of Deleted Posts
Code
Number
Post or
Description
Start
Time
End
Time
Employee
Classif
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
D9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI17
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI18
HSU
HSU
HSU
Rover
Rover
Rover
Rover-Medical
0000
0000
0000
0700
2400
2400
2400
1500
CO
CO
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
February 2013
40
Figure VII.13 presents the proposed new security division, a combination of existing posts moved from
units, and new posts.
Figure VII.13: Proposed Security Division Relieved Posts
Code
Number
DC
KP1
KP2
DET
BCCT1
BCCT2
MATS
SEW
Recycle 1
Recycle 2
EC
FC
MC1
MC2
MC3
Per
SI C
Chem
HSU C
Med C
Inf 1
Inf 2
Lobby
Hall Sec1
Hall Sec 2
Hall Sec 3
Post or Description
D Corridor
KP1
KP2
Detail
BCCT
BCCT
MATS
Sewing
Recycling
Recycling
E Corridor
F Corridor
Master Control 1
Master Control 2
Master Control 3
Perimeter
SI Corridor
Chemical (12s)
HSU Corridor
Medical Corridor
Infirmary/Medical
Infirmary/Medical
Lobby
Main Corridor
Main Corridor
Main Corridor
Start
Time
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0600
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
0700
0000
0700
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
0700
End
Time
2400
2400
2400
2400
1500
1500
1800
1500
1500
1500
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2400
2400
1900
2400
1500
2400
2400
2300
2400
2400
2300
Employee
Classif.
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sa
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Deleted/Eliminated
New
In addition to the security posts that are described in the preceding table, there must be provisions for
staff breaks. These are currently provided, sporadically, by the Rover posts, which are proposed to be
eliminated in the new coverage plan.
Figure VII.13 describes the relieved coverage hours for breaks. The times during which breaks must be
provided are shown for each shift. The number of officers needed to provide breaks is higher for the
Graves shift because the housing pods that were covered by two officers during Days and Swing (and
were therefore “self-relieving), are staffed by only one officer on Graves.
February 2013
41
Figure VII.13: Relieved Coverage for Correctional Officer Breaks
Code
Number
DayB1
DayB2
DayB3
DayB4
DayB5
DayB6
SwingB1
SwingB2
SwingB3
SwingB4
SwingB5
SwingB6
GraveB1
GraveB2
GraveB3
GraveB4
GraveB5
GraveB6
GraveB7
GraveB8
GraveB9
Post or Description
Breaks Day Shift 1
Breaks Day Shift 2
Breaks Day Shift 3
Breaks Day Shift 4
Breaks Day Shift 5
Breaks Day Shift 6
Breaks Swing Shift 1
Breaks Graves Shift 1
Start
Time
(00002400)
0830
0830
0830
0830
0830
0830
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
0030
0030
0030
0030
0030
0030
0030
0030
0030
End
Time
(00002400)
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
0600
0600
0600
0600
0600
0600
0600
0600
0600
Employee
Classif.
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The coverage pattern for breaks is illustrated by the graph in Figure VII.14.
Figure VII.14: Break Coverage Hours, Relieved, Correctional Officers
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mon
00:00
Tue
00:00
Wed
00:00
Thu
00:00
Fri
00:00
Sat
00:00
Sun
00:00
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sa
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
February 2013
42
In addition to the coverage needed for breaks, the proposed plan would provide officers to escort the
delivery of meals, medications, laundry and other activities to the housing pods. Figure VII.14 describes
one approach to these escort functions:
•
Providing coverage during the hours between breaks (6 officers for 2.5 hours in the morning
and afternoon, between Graves/Days and Days/Swing)
•
Providing four officers in a 12-hour “power shift” from 0500 to 1700 (covers all meals and other
escort functions when meals are not being served)
Figure VII.14: Relieved Coverage for Escorts
Code
Number
Post or Description
Start
Time
End
Time
Employee
Classification
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
Morn1
Morning Escort1
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Morn2
Morning Escort2
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Morn3
Morning Escort3
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Morn4
Morning Escort4
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Morn5
Morning Escort5
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Morn6
Morning Escort6
0600
0830
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft1
Afternnoon Esc1
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft2
Afternnoon Esc2
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft3
Afternnoon Esc3
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft4
Afternnoon Esc4
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft5
Afternnoon Esc5
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aft6
Afternnoon Esc6
1400
1630
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Power1
PowerShift1
0500
1700
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Power2
PowerShift2
0501
1701
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Power3
PowerShift3
0502
1702
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Power4
PowerShift4
0503
1703
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Figure VII.15 illustrates the break and escort coverage patterns.
February 2013
Figure VII.15: Coverage Pattern for Breaks and Escorts
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Sun 12:00
Sun 00:00
Sat 12:00
Sat 00:00
Fri 12:00
Fri 00:00
Thu 12:00
Thu 00:00
Wed 12:00
Wed 00:00
Tue 12:00
Tue 00:00
Mon 12:00
Mon 00:00
0
Breaks
Escort
Annual relieved correctional officer coverage hours have been calculated for current practices and the
proposed coverage plan. The findings are summarized in Figure VII.16.
Figure VII.16: Annual Correctional Officer Coverage Hours- Comparison
Current Practices
Proposed Unit Coverage
Proposed New Security Unit
Proposed Breaks
Proposed Escorts
Total Proposed
Difference
Percent Difference
Relieved Hours Average
Per Week
24/7 Posts
12,280
73.1
8,624
3,264
809
546
13,243
+963
+7.8%
51.3
19.4
4.8
3.3
78.8
+5.7
---
43
February 2013
Figure VII.17 displays all four elements of the proposed relieved coverage plan (CO’s), in a “stacked”
graph. Total correctional officer deployment levels range from a low of 58 to a high of 92 during the
week. Coverage levels for Security are somewhat lower on weekends, which is consistent with activity
levels.
Figure VII.17: Coverage Levels, Stacked, Correctional Officers
44
February 2013
45
Figure VII.18 displays the coverage levels for each element of the plan on the same plane (not stacked).
This format makes it easier to identify the number of correctional officers deployed by time of day and
day of the week.
Figure VII.18: Coverage Levels by Element, Correctional Officers, Proposed
2. Sergeants and Lieutenants—Relieved Posts
Current relieved posts for first line supervisors (sergeants) and lieutenants were difficult to define. It is
common for one sergeant to be assigned to each shift in the roster, giving the appearance of 24/7
coverage but falling far short 9 in practice. A 24/7 sergeants post, using “Net Annual Work Hour”
(NAWH) calculations for 2011, would require 5.06 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) sergeants to fill. To
provide relieved coverage for 24 hours a day, five days per week, would require 3.6 FTEs.
Covering one shift for 7 days requires 2,920 hours (8 hours times 365 days). One non-relieved sergeant delivered an
average of 1,732 hours in 2011, or 59.3% of the annual hours.
10
NAWH defines the number of hours an average employee (sergeant in this case) will actually be deployed during a year.
In 2011, sergeants delivered an average of 1,732 net hours on post, down from 1,761 in 2010. A 24-hour post requires
8,760 hours of coverage per year. 8,760 divided by 1,732 equals 5.06. A five-day, 24-hour post requires 6,257 coverage
hours in a year.
9
February 2013
Figure VII.19 presents the proposed coverage plan for relieved sergeant and lieutenant posts. Nonrelieved posts will be addressed later in this report.
Figure VII.19: Relieved Sergeant and Lieutenant Posts
Relieved Posts
Sergeant
Unit
Lieutenant
Graves
Days
Swing
Graves
Days
Swing
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
SI
1
1
1
1
1
1
HSU
1
1
1
1
1
1
RDT
1
1
1
1
1
1
Transportation
0
0
0
0
0
0
STG
0
0
0
0
0
0
QA (formerly ACA)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Training
0
0
0
0
0
0
CCP
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discipline
0
0
0
0
0
0
Security Div (new)
1
2
2
1*
1*
1*
Classification
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sec. Team (new)
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Shift Commander
Two relieved sergeant posts on the Day and Swing shifts (7 days) are proposed for the new Security
Division, along with one relieved sergeant on the Graves shift (7 days). These sergeants would work in
concert with the existing relieved Shift Commander (Lt.) post.
Converting Unit D, E, F, SI and HSU sergeant and lieutenant posts to relieved (instead of the current
“quasi-relieved”) provides another cadre of security personnel to respond immediately to incidents
and to manage incidents on-site. The proposed two Security Division sergeants (Days, Sings) and the
one sergeant on graves will be available throughout the facility as needed, and as dispatched by the
Shift Commander.
Figure VII.20 presents the proposed relieved coverage plan in the standard format.
46
February 2013
Figure VII.20: Proposed Relieved Sergeant and Lieutenant Posts
Code
Number
Post or
Description
Start
Time
End
Time
Empl.
Class.
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dsgt
Unit D Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
DAdSgt
D Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
Esgt
Unit E Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
EAdSgt
E Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
Fsgt
Unit F Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
FAdSgt
F Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
Sisgt
Unit SI Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
SIAdSgt
SI Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
HSUsgt
Unit HSU Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
HSUASg HSU Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
RDTsgt
Unit RDT Sgt
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
RDTASg RDT Adm Sgt
0700
1500
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
Secsgt1
Sec. Div Sgt1
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Secsft2
Sec Divt Sgt2
0000
2400
Sgt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dlt
Unit D Lt
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Elt
Unit E Lt
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Flt
Unit F Lt
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI lt
SI Lt
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSUlt
HSU Lt
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDTlt
RDT Lt
Shift
Commander
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0000
2400
Lt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SComm
Figure VII.21 illustrates all of the proposed relieved coverage – correctional officers, sergeants and
lieutenants.
47
February 2013
Figure VII.21: All Relieved Coverage—CO, Sgt, Lt
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Mon Mon Tues Tues Wed Wed Thur Thur Fri Mid Fri Sat Mid Sat
Mid Noon Mid Noon Mid Noon Mid Noon
Noon
Noon
CO Units
CO Security
CO Escort
CO Breaks
Sergeants
Sun
Mid
Sun
Noon
Lieutenants
Figure VII.22 shows the relieved coverage separately. Figure VII.23 provides a close-up for Monday.
Figure VII.22: Proposed Relieved Coverage by Type, 7 Days
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mon Mid
Tues Mid
Wed Mid
Thur Mid
Fri Mid
Sat Mid
Sun Mid
CO Breaks
CO Escort
Lieutenants
Sergeants
CO Security
CO Units
48
February 2013
49
Figure VII.23: Proposed Relieved Coverage by Type, Monday
60
50
40
30
20
CO Escort
CO Breaks
22:00
20:00
Mon 6 pm
16:00
14:00
Mon Noon
10:00
0
Mon Mid
02:00
04:00
Mon 6 am
08:00
10
Lieutenants
Sergeants
CO Security
CO Units
H. Non-Relieved Positions
Non-relieved positions are not back-filled when the employee assigned to the position does not report
for duty on a scheduled shift. Captains are an example of non-relieved positions. When they do not
report for work, no one is assigned to temporarily replace them for their shift.
Figure VII.24 describes the proposed non-relieved positions by type of employee for security
classifications.
February 2013
50
Figure VII.24: Proposed Non-Relieved Posts, CO, Sergeant and Lieutenants
Unit
D
E
F
SI
HSU
RDT
Transport
STG
QA (ACA)
Training
CCP
Discipline
Sergeant
Grave Days Swing
New Security Division
Security Team
1
1
1
1
3
3
Non Relieved Posts
Lieutenant
Graves Days Swing
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Correctional Officer
Graves Days Swing
1
9
26
1
2
2
8
1
6
1
7
7
7
The proposed coverage provides an administrative sergeant for days and swings to Units D, E, F, SI and
RDT.
MDC has invested in new classification and risk assessment tools and practices, through a contract with
Northpointe. A staffing analysis was developed by the Northpointe consultants, which is presented in
Appendix B.
According to their analysis, implementation of the new system will require one of the following two
actions:
1. Hire an additional 20 classification specialists for a total staff complement of 28 staff members
(which includes a relief factor for vacation, sick leave, holidays, and inefficiencies).
Or
2. Hire an additional 15 classification specialists for a total of 23 staff. This option will require reclassification of staff from exempt (salary) to non-exempt (hourly) so that the relief factor can
be addressed with overtime (when staff take vacation/sick leave and holidays the work will be
done by staff working overtime).
The additional staff replaces the existing 5 Sperion temporary staff and 6 CHC contractor staff.
I.
February 2013
51
“Details” That Require Additional Staff Effort Outside of Schedules
The third category of coverage that must be accommodated—and planned for—involves the pesky
tasks that come up unexpectedly, but require staff attention. These “details” consume many employee
hours during the year and must be anticipated in the budgeting process.
The largest single detail that poses the biggest operational problem at MDC is the “one-on-one”
supervision detail that is created by mental health and medical staff. These 1/1 activities are currently
staffed by correctional officers, but the Working Group recommends using civilians for these functions.
Regardless of which type of employee is eventually assigned, the annual budget should anticipate the
demand for these, and other details, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emergency medical transports
Hospital security duty
Other medical and mental health transports
Hospital watch/transport
Special assignments
Emergency events
Mass arrest
Operational breakdowns
Power failure and/or generators failing
Emergency searches
Mechanical failure/door locks
Facility search
Suicide/attempted suicide
Law enforcement funerals
High risk court event
Weather event (i.e., blizzard, flood)
Inmate death
Bomb threat
Maintenance projects
Facility renovation and major repairs
Court testimony
Escape
MDC does not have a mechanism to identify and quantify these events. A system should be developed
to provide the basis for annual budgets. In the meantime, an estimate will need to be developed for
the upcoming budget year.
The magnitude of these activities is suggested by the analysis of hospital and one-on-one demands
from a sample of daily shift reports, summarized in Figure VII.25.
February 2013
Figure VII-25: One-on-One and Hospital Supervision, Projected for a Full Year
Average Daily Shifts
SECURITY
One One
Hospital
HSU Unit
1 on 1 Male
4.75
1 on 1 Female
0.25
INFIRMARY
1 on 1 Male
3.00
1 on 1 Female
0.00
HOSP Female
1.75
HOSP Male
13.25
HOSP Rover
3.75
SI Unit
1 on 1 Male
1.25
Total Average Daily Shifts
9.25
18.75
Average per Shift
3.1
6.3
Shifts per Year
3,376
6,844
Hours per Year
27,010
54,750
Minor changes in current record-keeping practices (shift reports, overtime tracking, etc.) should
produce the kind of data that is needed to identify all “details” and to project future needs during the
budgeting process.
52
February 2013
53
VIII. SCHEDULES
The previous steps in the staffing analysis process produced proposed coverage plans for relieved posts
and positions. The coverage plans were developed without considering scheduling patterns. Schedules
are a means to implement coverage, and should be revised as needed.
A good schedule efficiently and consistently delivers the deployment described in the coverage plan.
MDC currently operates with a primary shift configuration:
•
•
•
•
•
•
8 hour shifts
5 consecutive work days
2 days off
Three different days-off configurations—
o Wednesday, Thursday
o Friday, Saturday
o Sunday, Monday
No employees have Tuesdays as their regularly scheduled day off
50% more employees are scheduled for Tuesdays than the other six days
Figure VIII.1 illustrates the scheduling pattern for three “keys” of nine employees each.
Figure VIII.1: Nine Employees per Key, 5 days on 2 days off, W/Th, F/Sa, Su/Mo
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sun 12:00
Sun 00:00
Sat 12:00
Sat 00:00
Fri 12:00
Fri 00:00
Thu 12:00
Thu 00:00
Wed 12:00
Wed 00:00
Tue 12:00
Tue 00:00
Mon 12:00
Mon 00:00
0
February 2013
54
The 27 employees scheduled in Figure VIII.1 produce six employees for six out of seven days, and nine
employees for the seventh day (at MDC, that is Tuesday). In some agencies, the seventh day is used for
staff meetings or training, but this is not the case at MDC.
In addition to the primary shift configuration, MDC employs others, including:
•
12-hour shifts (7 work days, 7 off days in every 14-day cycle)
•
5/2 eight-hour shifts with every weekend off (transport, courts, and other functions that occur
only on business days
•
“Power shifts” that are offset from the primary shift timing of 0700, 1500 and 2300
The proposed coverage plans were developed without consideration of current scheduling practices.
As a result, delivering the new coverage plans efficiently will require creative approaches to scheduling
in terms of:
•
Developing hybrid posts, in which an employee works for “x” hours at one location and then
moves on to another location (for example, providing breaks and then escorting meals or
medical carts)
•
Varying shift start times to correspond with actual demand for service
•
Staggering shift times to “ramp up” to meet demands
•
Varying shift length to better fit demands (for example, ten hours shifts often fit court or
transport needs better than eights)
•
Selectively using overtime for a short period of time in lieu of creating an 8-hour or longer
post 11
•
Combining varied shift configurations (such as assigning several court staff for 10 hour shifts,
Monday through Thursday, and other court staff to five, 8-hour shifts)
Scheduling Factor
In many agencies it is necessary to calculate a “scheduling factor” that is added to the annual budget.
This factor reflects the extent to which more employees report for duty than are needed on a shift.
These “extra” employees are welcomed by fellow workers, but their hours are not in the budget unless
a scheduling factor is applied.
In one Maryland facility, federal transfers are brought in every Thursday and require 2 hours of staff work. Employees are
asked to volunteer for a 2-hour overtime assignment at the end of their shift to accommodate this need, providing an
efficient response.
11
February 2013
55
The scheduling factor will come into play at MDC on Tuesdays. To the extent that the number of
employees who actually report for a scheduled shift exceeds the posts that need to be filled, these
extra hours must be documented and added to the annual budget.
As the number of employees on rosters increases, closing the gap between required posts and the
number of employees who report for duty on each shift, the scheduling factor will need to be
calculated for the entire organization.
The scheduling factor is not a form of “padding” that is added to the budget. It reflects the day-to-day
reality of scheduling employees for relieved posts. The sporadic provision of extra employees on a shift
will happen when rosters are brought up to necessary levels, and the scheduling factor will be needed
to anticipate budget needs.
The NIC staffing analysis handbook, 3rd Edition, describes the methodology for calculating the
scheduling factor.
February 2013
IX. NET ANNUAL WORK HOURS- NAWH (Step 6 of the NIC process)
There are many reasons that cause an employee to fail to report for a scheduled shift. Some of these
reasons are for the benefit of the agency, such as receiving training, testifying in court, or receiving a
medical examination. But the majority of the reasons are for the benefit of the employee, and most of
these are defined in employment contracts and personnel policies. These include vacation time, sick
time, family medical leave, military training or service, or leaves of absence.
In some instances, employees are absent without pay. While this eases the burden on the budget, it
does not ease the operational burden for the agency.
When a scheduled employee fails to report for duty for a relieved post, the shift commander has to
find a replacement. Whether the missing employee is being paid or not does not affect the impact on
the operation of that shift.
This step in the staffing analysis process calculates the average number of hours an employee actually
worked a scheduled shift “on the floor” in recent years. The product of these calculations-- “Net
Annual Work Hours” (NAWH)—describes the average number of hours worked “on post” by each
classification of employee for a given year.
The consultant was provided with detailed data for calendar years 2009, 2010 and 2011, describing
total hours taken by each employee. The findings are summarized in Figure IX.1.
Figure IX.1: Summary of Findings: NAWH 2009 - 2011
Correctional Officers
Year 2009
Year 2010
Year 2011
New NAWH Calculations
1,800
1,780
1,800
Previous MDC NAWH Findings
1,874
Previous Shift Relief Expressed as NAWH
1,569
Another Previous MDC NAWH
1,535
Correctional Techs
2009
2010
2011
1,812
1,783
1,819
1,853
Sergeants
2009
2010
2011
1,748
1,761
1,732
1,766
1,607
Lieutenants
2009
2010
2011
1,687
1,700
1,575
1,609
1,607
56
February 2013
Average annual hours were calculated for four classifications of employees—Correctional Officers,
Sergeants, Lieutenants and Correctional Techs. These are the primary classifications who are involved
with relieved posts. 12 Detailed findings are presented in Figure IX.2.
Figure IX.2: Average Annual Hours Away from Work or Post Calculations, 2009 – 2011
NAWH is not needed for employees who are assigned to non-relieved positions. But it is a critical budgeting tool for
relieved coverage hours, which comprise the majority of all hours worked.
12
57
February 2013
58
In addition to the “hours off” that were calculated from the employee time and payroll records (Figure
IX.2), the impact of off-post training must also be considered. MDC correctional officers receive two
types of training:
•
•
Initial pre-service training
Annual in-service training
Although only newly-hired officers receive the pre-service training, it has a big impact on the NAWH for
all officers. In 2011, first year employees received 16,320 hours of pre-service training. Figure IX.3
presents the number of correctional officers employed, the number of officers terminated, and the
total first year training for the 2009 through 2011.
Figure IX.3: First Year Training, 2009 - 2011
2009
2010
2011
Number of Correctional Officers
375
363
412
C.O. Terminations
81
63
102
12,960
10,080
16,320
First Year Training Hours
Figure IX.4 identifies the average training hours for c.o.’s for the past three year, and shows the final
calculation of NAWH for correctional officers.
Figure IX.4: Training Hours and Final NAWH Calculations, Correctional Officers
2009
2010
2011
Average
211.8
238.1
206.2
218.7
34.6
27.8
39.6
34.0
C. In Service Training
40
40
40
40.0
D. Total Hours Away
A+B+C
286.3
305.9
285.8
292.7
E. Scheduled Hours
2,086
2,086
2,086
2086.0
1,799.7
1,780.1
1,800.2
1793.3
A. Total Hours Off
(see Figure IX.2)
B. Average 1st Yr/CO
Training Hours
F. NAWH
E minus D
February 2013
59
When NAWH goes down, costs go up. Figure IX.5 shows the number of FTE’s--- full time equivalent
employees—required to deliver the current number of relieved correctional officer hours (640,279)
described in Figure VII.16 earlier in this report, using four different NAWH values that had been
calculated in previous years.
Figure IX.5: FTEs Required to Deliver 640,279 Relieved Hours
NAWH
1,874 hours
1,800 hours
1,569 hours
1,535 hours
FTEs
341.7
355.7
408.1
417.1
Delivering the same number of hours requires from 341.7 to 417.1 FTEs based on the NAWH that
applies. In effect, the cost per delivered CO hour increases as NAWH declines. Costs are higher but
there is no increase in the number of hours delivered.
MDC officials must estimate NAWH for the coming budget year, based on the analysis of past practices
and the consideration of changes that are anticipated, such as:
•
•
•
Changes in employment contracts that affect vacation, sick time and other benefits
Changes in policies, procedures, regulations and laws that might affect the number of hours
employees actually work in a year
Anticipated staff turnover and the resulting new hires that require expensive first year training
Good News? In the sea of calculations and findings associated with NAWH, there may be some good
news for MDC in the next year. It is likely that:
•
•
Employee turnover will decline because—
o Terminations will abate now that there has been a thorough “house cleaning”
o There will be fewer new hires to—
 Replace terminated staff
 Replace employees who choose to leave employment
 Expand the overall workforce
Average training hours per correctional officer will be reduced as a result of the drop in
turnover
MDC officials must refine their data collection and analysis practices to ensure that NAWH calculations
become more accurate in the coming years. The calculations should be generated in time to inform the
budgeting process each year.
APPENDIX A: NOTES FROM WORK SESSIONS
APPENDIX B: STAFFING FOR NORTHPOINTE CLASSIFICATION AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
February 2013
60
Notes from 1st Round of Staffing Analysis Meetings
Metro Detention Center
April 30–May 3, 2012
NOTES FROM 1st ROUND OF STAFFING ANALYSIS MEETINGS
April 30 – May 3, 2012
Contact: Rod Miller, consultant
[email protected]
Introduction to the Project………………………………...........
1
Overview of the Process……………………………..................
2
Attachment 1: Notes from Flipcharts…………………………..
1.1
Attachment 2: Excerpts from Staffing Analysis Proposal…..
2.1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT
Bernalillo County officials have commissioned a collaborative staffing analysis
that will provide opportunities to examine all aspects of the Metropolitan
Detention Center (MDC), improving effectiveness and, where possible, efficiency.
The process involves stakeholders in a series of four rounds of work sessions,
provides many opportunities to:
•
Find ways to “work smarter” with existing resources,
•
Match revised operations to existing resources, and
•
Identify the need for additional resources (facilities, technology,
operations).
The process examines all aspects of current operations, identifies opportunities
to change policies, practices, the use of technology and facilities.
The principal consultant for the project is Rod Miller, who has headed the nonprofit organization CRS Inc. since he founded it in 1972. Rod is the principal
author of the staffing analysis process developed for the National Institute of
Corrections.
A-1
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
The approach centers on the innovative staffing analysis methodology that was
developed by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 1987,1 and that has
been refined continuously since then.
The NIC process provides many opportunities to
discover new efficiencies and to explore creative
solutions throughout the staffing analysis process. It
has been successfully used in jails throughout the
United States, as well as law enforcement
agencies, various city and county departments, fire
departments, nursing homes, and other complex
organizations that encountered relieved posts and
positions.
The process creates a “chain of evidence” between
hours worked on the floor and dollars in the budget.
This accountability has proven helpful to officials.
In recent years, the staffing analysis process has
proven to be a catalyst that helped agencies with
serious problems to re-invent their policies and
practices from the ground up.
The staffing analysis process offers a unique
opportunity to begin to change the culture of the
organization and its operations. The NIC process provides perspective and
invites participation by a wide range of persons.
Attachment 2 presents excerpts from the proposal that has been accepted.
Many persons have a “stake” in the staffing analysis process. Stakeholders have
opportunities participate in the process, directly at the table as the analysis is
completed, and through other methods as draft findings are developed.
All of the work products drafted during this process will be distributed to all MDC
employees through email and other methods. Stakeholders in other agencies
and organizations will also receive the drafts as they are developed.
Everyone is invited to review drafts and to contribute their comments, concerns
and suggestions at any time.
1
Miller, Rod and Dennis Liebert. Staffing Analysis Workbook for Jails. National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington D.C. First Edition 1987. Second Edition
2003. Third Edition 2012 (in final editing.) http://tbf.me/a/gnPxP
A-2
Four Rounds of Work
The project began with the first round of working group sessions on May 1 and
May 3. These initial meetings examined the “context” in which staffing is
implemented in MDC. The work sessions produced outlines that describe the
context in terms of:
•
Concerns going into this process
•
Changes that have occurred in the past five to ten years
•
Unique challenges posed to operations by—
o Facility design and condition
o Technology and equipment
o Standards and laws
o Policies and procedures
o Staff
o Other characteristics of the context
Attachment 1 presents the notes that were recorded on flipcharts during the two
work sessions.
Subsequent work sessions will focus on intermittent activities and the
development of a detailed coverage plan. Draft coverage plans will be tested and
refined, providing the foundation for the review of scheduling practices. The
“math” of relieved posts and positions will be calculated, improving the accuracy
of the budgeting process.
PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF MEETINGS (1 or both meetings)
Jose Alvarado, Lt. Shift Commander Swing Shift
Assistant Chief Ruben Padilla
Stephen Perkins, Lt., Union President, Shift Commander on Grave Shift
Monica Romer, Corrections Officer
Chief Ramon Rustin
A-3
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF MEETINGS
The focus of the June 4 – 8 round of meetings will:
1. Identify intermittent activities that occur at least weekly and which pose
demands on operations and staffing
2. Identify other demands on staff that occur less frequently (“details”)
3. Set the stage for the development of detailed “coverage plans” that
describe staffing needs by time and day of the week
Interested persons are invited to contact the consultants via email to offer their
perspectives and experience. email [email protected]
What You Can Do to Help….
•
Review these notes and submit your questions, concerns or
additions.
•
Identify and share information about intermittent activities that
occur at least weekly (identify start and end times, and days of
the week).
•
Identify and share “details” (projects) that happen once in a
while, and which require taking staff from their posts.
Please send your comments and suggestions to [email protected]
For more information about the staffing analysis process, including sample
reports, go to http://tbf.me/a/gnPxP
Attachment 1: Notes from Flipcharts…………………………..
1.1
Attachment 2: Excerpts from Staffing Analysis Proposal…..
2.1
A-4
ATTACHMENT 1: Notes from Flipcharts, First Round of Meetings
CONCERNS
Turnover
Pay scales and perceptions
Salaried vs. OT—disincentive, becomes base pay
From “rigid” to ….. (management)
Team- uniformed v. non-uniformed. And sufficiency
Priorities- shared (uniformed vs. non)
Accountability
Look at the “whole” – function
Mechanism e.g. Overtime
Overtime—(symptom) $$$
Forced
Stress
Burnout
Sick
Turnover
Sick Leave
Sufficiency—security ______
Ratios? Staff to Beds
On the Floor
SAFETY
“Special Projects”- “Details”
FMLA
One on One’s [symptoms and outcome measures]
Hospitals
“Get to the Number”
“Smarter not Harder”
Are contracts accurate?
“Adding” Posts
Payroll- for where O.T.
Training- pre- and post-assignment
May 2012
A-5
May 2012
Feel Safe When Working
“Accommodating” Employees
Morale—forced overtime (sick), Schedule?
CONSISTENCY
Relief Factor (net vs. gross)
Quality of Staff—ethic vs. beat ‘em, training
Records, too
Policies/procedures- not always there, practice doesn’t match
Word of mouth
Pre-Service Training (12 weeks) “sucks”— accountable
OTT, consistency
Legal department—doing policies and procedures?
Staff need to know all tasks, not just what you want to do.
Staff selection, realistic, effective, “control” people
Support from administration after the academy—back your staff
Culture changes (fear of inmates)
Blame the officers
Follow the policies/procedures—accountable
“Favoritism” – e.g. posts, all divisions
Case managers ≠ Security
2 officers/pod
Civilian staff need to be protected
Limits on how much a Direct Supervision officer can do
Need to re-examine how 1 on 1, and who
Analyze critical incident data
Classification—no relief factor, salaried—com-time (flex)
Northpointe- add staff—when reclassify and do risk
Telestaff data in—no consistent
A-6
CHANGES
Inmate
Older
Younger
Not as accountable (our fault?)
More of them
More with mental health issues (also finding more)
Litigious
More violent (not weapons), gang up 5 on 1
Sexual predator
Gangs
Med-seekers
Play the game
McClendon ending?
Grievances
More medical and mental health
McClendon “coaching” e.g. 659 psych care
400 – 700 detox/month
Alcohol detox, pregnant, etc.
Statute- metro court good time
Staff
New chief- (Steelers fan)
Assistant chief
Younger/generational
“Mentality” – pick OT/days off
Don’t need job, live at home
Grooming, piercings, etc.
Question authority—why?
Technology—immediate gratification
More to do in addition to security
More types of issues to watch (training)
May 2012
A-7
May 2012
A-8
Trickle down of unfunded mandates
“While you’re there…”
Facility/Operations
Case managers?
Decentralized—comes a lot diversity
More programs, more types of programs “on officers backs”
No longer one thing at a time—
Less control
e.g. Echo—now not desirable, too much
“So much on top of officer”
(?) IA- 80% being + (?)
Equipment/Technology
Implementation of technology—linkages
Getting dialysis equipment (less transports)
Surveillance system is a replacement
Updates are planned- cameras
Electronic medical records, med pass faster, some slower
Computers in pods are distracting—behind desk more, but more info. Upgrade
Kiosks
Bar codes/ bracelets (staff intensive)
Popcorn machines
Operations/Administration
Procedures/policies—
Missing
Outdated
Unclear
Unit management- reborn?
Officer safety is lower—
not monitored, second eyes
detecting problems
Response OK generally
ATTACHMENT 2: Excerpts - Proposal: MDC Staffing Analysis Services
CRS, Inc. March 2012
A-9
Proposal:
Staffing Analysis Services
Metropolitan Detention Center
CRS Incorporated
A Non-Profit Organization Founded in 1972
Rod Miller, President [email protected]
925 Johnson Drive, Gettysburg PA 17325
(717) 338-9100 or (717) 515-8490 [cell]
www.correction.org
March 25, 2012
On behalf of CRS Incorporated, I am pleased to submit the following proposal for the provision
of professional services. CRS is a non-profit organization now in its 40th year of operation. I
founded the organization in 1972 and I have directed all of our projects over the years. This
proposal offers my services as the foundation for the staffing analysis process.
This proposal was developed at the request of Danette Gonzales, Employment Manager for the
Metropolitan Detention Center. I have provided a copy of the Hennepin County, Minnesota, final
report as an attachment to the email that transmits this report. Other samples are available on
request.
This proposal suggests a collaborative process that will involve a cross section of all MDC
“stakeholders” in a comprehensive process that will evaluate all aspects of current operations in
an effort to identify ways to be more effective and efficient. The process also generates improved
budgeting tools, such as “Net Annual Work Hour” calculations that are critical to providing
sufficient staff resources for relieved posts and positions.
The process will center on the 3rd Edition of the NIC Jail Staffing Analysis, which is in the final
stages of editing. CRS Inc. developed the 3rd Edition for the National Institute of Corrections
under a cooperative agreement.
We are ready to provide the services described in this proposal for a maximum fee of $17,966,
which includes four trips to and 14 days of on site work in Bernalillo County. We suggest an
“upset fee” agreement that allows us to bill our actual costs as they are incurred, up to the
$17,966 maximum. If our costs are less (which does happen!) the savings are passed on to the
County. Our proposed costs are subject to revision through negotiation of the scope and level of
services, if necessary.
This proposal may be amended as needed, to better respond to the needs of the County. We are
available to begin work on this project within two weeks after we receive the notice to proceed.
I hope that we will be able to work together to conduct a comprehensive and timely MDC
staffing analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
Rod Miller, President
I.
A-10
Approach
NIC Staffing Analysis Methodology
Our approach centers on the innovative staffing analysis methodology developed by the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 1987,1 and refined continuously since then. The NIC process
provides many opportunities to discover new efficiencies and to explore creative solutions
throughout the staffing analysis process. It has been successfully used in jails throughout the
United States, as well as by law enforcement agencies, various County and county departments,
fire departments, and even nursing homes.
Staffing is a means to an end-- a response to the unique jail context that is comprised of facilities,
technology, inmates and operations. No one knows the local context better than those who
manage and operate the jail, but sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees. The NIC
process provides perspective and invites participation by a wide range of persons.
Improving staffing practices and efficiency combines math, science and art. Certainly the math
must be correct, as we translate coverage hours needed in the Detention Center into Full Time
Equivalents (FTE) in the budget. At times in the staffing process the participants will be involved
with researching operations and testing new approaches-- the “science” part of the process. Some
elements of the process require creative solutions, such as “art” of efficient scheduling.
Every jail has its own set of circumstances that drive staffing needs. Sometimes the best solution
to a problem involves a one-time response--such as changing a procedure, adapting the facility,
or employing new technology--rather than incurring ongoing costs by adding staff. Sometimes
additional staff effort will be the only effective solution.
The NIC process empowers local officials and other stakeholders and promotes a comprehensive
and collaborative approach. Involving stakeholders in the process ensures that many perspectives
will be considered and that every aspect of the staffing analysis process is completed in the open,
with ample opportunities for participation. This approach usually results improved staff morale
as a byproduct.
Prior Experience with MDC
Rod Miller was one of two trainers who provided the 4-day Jail Vulnerability Assessment
training at MDC in July 2009. The training was sponsored by the American Jail Association
(AJA) and was hosted by MDC. This time on site gives Rod a head start with regard to the
staffing analysis process.
Consultant’s Role
Retaining a qualified and experienced outside expert-- to guide and assist the process rather than
to dominate it-- provides the best of both worlds for Bernalillo County, and substantially reduces
consulting costs. The expert conducts a staffing analysis with the agency, not for them. At the
end of this process, the findings and recommendations are credible, new efficiencies have been
1
Miller, Rod and Dennis Liebert. Staffing Analysis Workbook for Jails. National Institute of Corrections, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington D.C. First Edition 1987. Second Edition 2003. Third Edition 2010.
A-11
discovered, and the local agency has developed the capacity to periodically update the staffing
analysis.
II. Methodology
We will work closely with County officials and personnel to examine current staffing,
administrative and budgeting practices through the staffing analysis process.
This process will:
•
Identify opportunities to improve current Detention Center operations and practices
•
Develop staff coverage plans that are not limited by schedules
•
Examine current scheduling practices and efficiency
•
Consider scheduling improvements
•
Calculate “Net Annual Work Hours” (NAWH) to accurately determine the number of
hours employees are actually available to work on relieved posts
•
Develop budget projections that provide detailed descriptions of the Full Time
Equivalents (FTE) needed as salaries and overtime allocations, and which tie all staffing
expenditures to specific Detention Center operations and activities
•
Develop new practices and protocols to improve the collection of information and data
to better inform an annual staffing analysis update
Strategies and Principles
Our approach is guided by several strategies and principles that have proven effective in other
jurisdictions, including:
•
Stakeholder Participation. We believe that the most accurate and effective solutions are
created as a collaborative process that involves representatives of key stakeholder groups.
•
Capacity -Building. Our work will ensure that local officials and employees develop the
knowledge and skills needed to implement the findings and update the staffing analysis
annually.
•
“Nothing Up Our Sleeves.” Our approach ensures that all analyses, calculations, findings
and recommendations are clear to all parties, providing a foundation for effective
implementation and appropriate future updates.
•
Continuous Improvement. Effective and efficient staffing responds to changes in the jail
context, requiring a continuous process of monitoring and refining practices, and the
development and implementation of more effective data collection and analysis
protocols. For example, NAWH calculations must be updated annually to accurately
inform budgets.
A-12
The methodology described in NIC's 3rd Edition involves nine sequential steps:
The Staffing Analysis Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Describe the setting
Chart activities
Develop a coverage plan
Evaluate the coverage plan
Develop schedules and calculate efficiency
Calculate Net Annual Work Hours (NAWH)
Prepare a budget
Write the report
Implement and monitor
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the process by which staffing needs are identified, coverage is
determined, and the math associated with calculating relief factors and determining budget needs
is accomplished. Each of the nine NIC steps is essential to this process (circles in Figure 1
identify the step[s] associated with each component.)
Figure 1: Staffing Analysis and Budgeting Flowchart2
2
Developed by Rod Miller and John Wetzel, to be published in published in 3rd Edition Jail Staffing Analysis.
A-13
Working Bernalillo officials and employees, we will implement this process and set the stage for
annual review and revision of the staffing analysis.
III.
Work Plan
We propose an efficient participatory approach, anticipating three site visits that will involve a
variety of stakeholders in different aspects of the work, and a fourth site visit that will focus on
presentations and implementation planning. A series of “work sessions” will allow participation
by various officials and employees.
A core team will be involved in all of the work sessions, while other stakeholders will be invited
to participate in appropriate portions of the sessions. The work sessions will involve a
combination of training and technical assistance. The products will be offered to a broader group
of stakeholders for review and comment as the process continues, via email, posting, and other
methods.
A. Tasks
1. Prior to our first site visit, we will outline a range of information and data that would be
helpful to review before working on site. We will also develop a “core team” that will bring the
perspectives and experience of various stakeholders to the table throughout the process. We
would ask the County to consider involving the following types of stakeholders in the analysis:
•
Commissioner/designee
•
County Administrator/designee
•
Budget analyst
•
Personnel/HR manager
•
Risk manager
•
Detention Center first-line supervisor(s)
•
Detention Center line officer(s)
•
Detention Center program staff
•
Detention Center administrators(s)/manager(s)
•
Detention Center contract service provider(s), such as health service and/or food service
(as needed at specific points in the process)
•
Representatives of labor organizations, such as unions and bargaining units
•
Others that the County believes have a “stake” in jail operations and staffing
Not all of these stakeholders will be involved in every activity, but each will have meaningful
opportunities to participate in each step of the process.
2. First Site Visit. After the MDOC assembles most of the needed materials and identifies the
core team members, Rod Miller will visit the site for 3 days of work. During this site visit, the
core team will meet for a total 1.5 days of work sessions. Rod will implement a variety of
additional tasks while on site. He will develop a task list, with the core team, to guide subsequent
A-14
efforts. Primary Focus: Step 1 of process—analyzing facility, technology and operations to
identify staffing challenges.
3. After the first site visit, the County and CRS will work on their respective tasks. As additional
information and data are developed by the County, Rod will review and analyze them. A series
of dialogues will explore preliminary findings, additional information needs, and draft
recommendations.
4. Second Site Visit. When all parties have made sufficient progress on their tasks, the second
site visit will be conducted. Rod Miller will again visit the site for 3 days of work. During this
site visit, the core team will meet for 1 to 2 days, drafting various components of the staffing
analysis. At the conclusion of the meeting, Rod will develop a task list with the core team to
guide subsequent efforts. Primary Focus: Step 2 of the process- identifying and analyzing
intermittent activities.
5. After the second site visit, the County and CRS will work on their respective tasks. As
additional information, data and products are developed Rod and will review and comment.
Draft materials will be circulated to all core team members, and to others as appropriate, for
review and comment prior to the third site visit.
6. Third site visit (3 to 4 days) will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to share their
comments and suggestions, having reviewed draft findings. The team will draft a detailed
coverage plan. Primary Focus: Step 3 of the process—drafting detailed coverage plans.
7. After the third site visit, final analysis and drafting will continue. Revised materials and drafts
will be shared with County officials and employees as needed.
8. Fourth site visit (3 days) will provide opportunities to evaluate the draft coverage plan and
make final revisions. Scheduling issues will be examined and the Net Annual Work Hour
calculations will be finalized. Rod will draft a comprehensive report that will be reviewed by the
core team in an effort to produce a consensus document. The draft final report will include
various support and resource materials that will assist with the implementation of
recommendations. Primary Focus: Final coverage plan, scheduling efficiency, NAWH
9. After fourth site visit. Rod will revise the draft report and send it to the county for review and
comments. Final revisions will be made and the report will be submitted.
Figure 2 on the following page describes the proposed work plan.
B. Timing
The actual timing will depend on the availability of data, information, County officials and
employees, and the depth of work that is actually encountered. If all goes well, this process could
be completed within three; if difficulties are encountered, additional time will be needed.
CRS is available to begin work in this project within two weeks of receiving notice to proceed.
Additional information and insights about the staffing analysis process and methodology,
including the recent articles, may be found at our web site, www.correction.org, or by using our
national clearinghouse web address, www.staffinganalysis.com
A-15
Figure 2: Proposed Work Plan
Staging
Consultant's Tasks/Responsibilities
County 's Tasks/Responsibilities
Step 1:
Initial
Preparations
Assist County to identity participants in staffing
analysis process (phone calls, provide list of
potential participants)
Identify participants in staffing analysis process-describe respective "levels" of involvement
(e.g. core team, participate in work sessions,
receive reports, etc.)
Core members of staffing analysis team review
3rd Edition NIC Staffing Analysis Workbook
for Jails
Provide resource documents to County
(3rd Edition of NIC Staffing Analysis
Workbooks, and related forms/formats)
Prepare an initial "checklist" of documents to be
assembled for the first work session, and data/
information to be collected
Review documentation prior to first work session.
Step 2:
First
Site Visit &
Work
Session
Step 3:
Additional
Research
Schedule and prepare materials for first work
session
Meet with officials, core team and others, prior to
work session. Tour facility(s).
Conduct first work session, 1.5 days total, over a
3-day site visit.
Meet with core team to debrief after the work
session.
Respond to inquiries from the County re:
additional work being implemented following
first work session.
Assemble documents, data and information prior
to the first work session.
Provide documents, data and information to
consultant one week prior to the work session.
Agree on dates for work session. Find space.
Invite participants.
Meet with consultant. Provide additional
information and data as requested on site.
Provide tour(s) of facility(s).
Participate in first work session.
Transcribe work products.
Core team meets with consultant and develop "to
do" list.
Implement additional tasks as defined during
work session (such as collecting additional
data or information, drafting or re-drafting
staffing forms)
Send materials to consultant at least a week prior
to the second work session.
Prepare for second work session (date, location,
invitations)
Meet with consultant.
Step 5:
Review Draft
& Prepare
for Coverage
Review additional material provided by the
County
Assist with preparations for the second work
session.
Meet with officials, core team and others, prior to
work session.
Conduct second work session, 2 days total, over a
3-day site visit.
Meet with core team to debrief after the work
session.
Analyze intermittent activities and prepare for
coverage plan drafting.
Identify additional data and information needs.
Analyze data and information.
Step 6:
Third
Site Visit
Draft coverage plan and conduct initial evaluation.
Conduct additional inquiries and analysis as
needed.
Meet with consultant.
Assist with additional inquiries and analysis.
Step 7:
Evaluate
coverage
plan
Review draft coverage plan.
Assemble data for Net Annual Work Hours.
Examine scheduling data.
Review draft coverage plan.
Provide data for NAWH.
Step 4:
Second
Site Visit &
Work
Session
Participate in second work session.
Core team meets with consultant and develops
final "to do" list.
Circulate draft Intermittent Activities findings
review and evaluation.
Assemble comments on draft.
Provide data an information as requested.
A-16
Figure 2 (continued)
Step 8:
Evaluate
Coverage
Plan,
Fourth site visit.
Meetings with core group.
Implementation planning and training.
Core group meetings.
Finalize report.
Participate in implementation planning.
Step 9:
Finalize
Report
Prepare final draft of report and circulate
Make final changes to report.
Submit final report.
Review final draft and provide comments.
V.
Brief Description of the Organization
CRS is a non--profit organization created by Rod Miller in 1972. In the past 38 years we have
worked at the local, county, regional, state and national level on a variety of detention,
corrections and law enforcement project. We have been based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, since
2001.
Appendix B provides a more complete description of our organization. The majority of our work
has been at the city and county level. Rod Miller has delivered all of the jail staffing analysis
training for the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) over the past 10 years. We have worked
with many large jail systems using the NIC staffing analysis methodology, including Jackson
County (Kansas City ), Missouri, Denver, Colorado and surrounding counties, Orange County
(Orlando), Florida, Miami/Dade, Florida, Montgomery County, Maryland and Hennepin County
(Minneapolis), Minnesota.
VI.
Personnel to be Assigned
The majority of the work described in this proposal will be delivered by Rod Miller, founder and
President of CRS. His resume is provided in Appendix A. Joseph Heltzel will provide support
staff services, such as data entry, as needed.
Rod Miller, President
Rod is well-qualified to implement this project for the County of Bernalillo. Rod founded CRS
40 years ago and has headed the non-profit organization since its inception. His resume is
provided in Appendix A, including a partial list of his publications. Rod’s work has taken him to
more than 1,600 jails and prisons throughout North America.
It could be said that Rod has “written the book” on just about every facet of jail operations,
design and planning-- and staffing analysis. He has been the principal or co-author for major
texts commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice for the following topics:
•
•
Staffing Analysis (NIC). First, second and third editions of workbooks that have gained
national prominence, and have resulted in Rod’s assignment to dozens of counties
and states to provide training for NIC.
Standards (NIJ and BJA). Extensive research on conditions of confinement to inform the
development of national (ACA) standards, a central role in the development of the
new prototype for ACA performance-based standards, and a key role in developing
new national minimum (ACA) standards for jails, residential facilities, industries and
more.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A-17
Legal Issues and Caselaw (NIC and CRS). Primary responsibility for the development
and quarterly updating of a comprehensive catalog of summaries for more than 7,000
federal court decisions. Also responsible for a quarterly newsletter and the annual
updates for the 20 editions of the Caselaw Catalog.
Security, Safety and Risk Assessment (NIJ and ACA). Completion of a comprehensive
text on “vulnerability assessment” for prisons (June 2006), and the conversion of that
document for use in jails in 2009.
Jail Operations (NIC). A comprehensive text was broadly distributed nationally to serve
as the one-stop source of guidance on all aspects of jail operations.
Policies and Procedures (NIC). A workbook describing “how to” guide, and a new
training program developed with the Pennsylvania Corrections Academy
Planning and Design (NIJ and ACA). A comprehensive text on how to plan and design
jail facilities.
Inmate Work and Industry (NIJ and BJA). Comprehensive text on jail industries
operations, a workbook for developing work and industry programs, and a handbook
for business planning.
In addition to the preceding books and texts, Rod has written dozens of professional articles
addressing the subjects described above, and more. He has just submitted the 22nd in a series of
articles on staffing analysis that are being published by the National Sheriff magazine. He writes
two columns for each issue of American Jails magazine (jail inmate work and industries, and
federal court decisions.)
Most important, though, is Rod’s hands-on experience in jails of all size. Although he has written
extensively and is widely published, all of his publications are firmly grounded on real world
experience in jails. Rod’s resume identifies the many jail staffing analysis and related projects
and training efforts with which Rod has been involved in recent years.
A-18
NOTES FROM 2nd ROUND OF STAFFING ANALYSIS MEETINGS
June 4 – 7, 2012
[email protected]
Introduction/Overview of the Process…………….................
1
Notes from Second Round of Meetings………………………
2
Attachment 1: Activity Schedules and Graphs…………….
1.1
Attachment 2: Current Relieved Security Posts……………
2.1
Attachment 3: Transcriptions of Flipcharts………………….
3.1
FINDINGS AND ISSUES TO CONSIDER
FINDING: Current intermittent activity schedules can be improved, especially
with regard to the scheduling of:
o Breakfast (move later)
o Lunch (move later)
o Laundry (possibly move to Swing Shift)
Question: Are there other changes in the scheduling of activities that
would make daily operations more efficient?
In addition to looking at when activities happen, there may be ways to change
operational practices to increase efficiency and reduce demands on staff.
Question: Are there ways to improve procedures and practices that would
reduce the impact on facility staffing?
FINDING: Current coverage practices may be improved to better respond to
peak demands and to take advantage of lulls in activity.
Question: Are there times in which current relieved staff coverage is
insufficient to safely, securely and consistently carry out policies
and procedures?
Question: Are there times at which current staffing levels may be
temporarily reduced when demands are lower?
Notes from 2nd Round of Staffing Analysis Meetings
June 4 - 7, 2012
to change policies, practices, the use of technology and facilities. The principal
consultant for the project is Rod Miller, who has headed the non-profit
organization CRS Inc. since he founded it in 1972. Rod is the principal author of
the staffing analysis process developed for the National Institute of Corrections.
discover new efficiencies and to explore
creative solutions throughout the staffing
analysis process. It has been successfully used
in jails throughout the United States, as well as
law enforcement agencies, various city and
county departments, fire departments, nursing
homes, and other complex organizations that
encountered relieved posts and positions.
The process creates a “chain of evidence”
between hours worked on the floor and dollars
in the budget. This accountability has proven
helpful to officials.
In recent years, the staffing analysis process
has proven to be a catalyst that helped
agencies with serious problems to re-invent
their policies and practices from the ground up.
organization and its operations.
The NIC process provides perspective and invites participation by a wide range
of persons.
1
A-19
June 4 - 7, 2012
A-20
and organizations will also receive the drafts as they are developed. Everyone is
invited to review drafts and to contribute their comments, concerns and
suggestions at any time.
SECOND ROUND OF MEETINGS
Attendance
The second round of work focused on intermittent activities and the timing of
daily tasks at the facility. Three work sessions were held over a four-day period:
Participants in One or More Meetings
Roseanne Gonzales
Stephen Perkins, Lt., Union President, Shift Commander on Grave Shift
Monica Romero, Corrections Officer
Chief Ramon Rustin
June 4 - 7, 2012
Connecting Round 2 Work with Concerns Expressed in Round 1
Work sessions addressed many of the concerns that were identified during the
first round of meetings:
CONCERNS
Look at the “whole” – function
Overtime—(symptom) $$$
Forced
Stress
Burnout
Sick
Turnover
Sufficiency—security ______
Ratios? Staff to Beds
On the Floor
SAFETY
One on One’s [symptoms and outcome measures]
Hospitals
“Adding” Posts
Feel Safe When Working
CONSISTENCY
Records, too
Follow the policies/procedures—accountable
2 officers/pod
A-21
June 4 - 7, 2012
A-22
Connecting Round 2 Work with Changes Identified in Round 1
The work sessions also addressed some of the changes that were identified in
the first round:
CHANGES
More to do in addition to security
Trickle down of unfunded mandates
“While you’re there…”
More programs, more types of programs “on officers backs”
No longer one thing at a time—
Less control
“So much on top of officer”
Getting dialysis equipment (less transports)
Electronic medical records, med pass faster, some slower
Kiosks
Bar codes/ bracelets (staff intensive)
Unit management- reborn?
Officer safety is lower—
o not monitored, second eyes
o detecting problems
Examining Intermittent Activities (See Also Attachments 1)
The level of activity at MDC ebbs and flows during the 24 hours of each day.
While many functions are continuous, such as:
o Inmate supervision, periodic health and welfare checks
o Maintaining the master control room
o Providing perimeter security
Other activities are “intermittent,” occurring less than 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
These intermittent activities have an impact on jail safety, security and
operations. As a result, they should have an impact on staffing practices and
needs.
Attachment 1 presents the detailed activity schedules that were developed by the
working group, along with graphs that illustrate the variation of activity levels over
a 7 day week.
A-23
June 4 - 7, 2012
Figure 1 illustrates the levels of activities in Fox Unit, caused by inmate programs
and services, based on the classroom schedule.
Figure 1: Intermittent Activity Levels. Fox Unit
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
20:00
16:00
08:00
Sun 12:00
04:00
20:00
Sun 00:00
16:00
08:00
Sat 12:00
04:00
20:00
Sat 00:00
16:00
08:00
Fri 12:00
04:00
20:00
Fri 00:00
16:00
08:00
Thu 12:00
04:00
20:00
Thu 00:00
16:00
08:00
Wed 12:00
04:00
20:00
Wed 00:00
16:00
08:00
Tue 12:00
04:00
20:00
Tue 00:00
16:00
08:00
Mon 12:00
04:00
Mon 00:00
0
Overall operations also increase and decrease during the 24-hour day. Figure 2
shows the major overall intermittent activities that were identified by the group.
Figure 2: Overall Intermittent Activities
Activity
Start
End
W
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Breakfast New
Lockdown Mornings
Prof Visits
Lunch New
Lockdown Afternoons
Prof Visits
Dinner, Fri Sat
Dinner, exc Fri Sat
Lockdown Nights
0500
0530
0630
0630
0800
0800
0800
1100
1400
1430
1600
1600
1600
1730
1800
2200
2230
0630
0800
0800
0700
1330
1400
1400
1230
1600
1500
1830
2000
2200
1800
1900
2400
2300
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sat Sun
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
June 4 - 7, 2012
A-24
The intermittent activities in Figure 2 were assigned a “weight” (from 1 to 3)
suggesting the magnitude of impact each activity had on overall jail operations.
These are shown in the column labeled “W.” Note that lockdowns (inmates
returning to their cells for a period of time) resulted in a lower weight than did the
periods in which inmates were allowed in their dayrooms.
Figure 3 illustrates the changes in activity levels for Mondays, using revised
feeding times for Breakfast and Lunch. Note the longer period of “down” time on
the graveyard shift that results.
Figure 3: Weighted Intermittent Activity Levels, Mondays
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
22
30
21
00
19
30
18
00
16
30
15
00
13
30
12
00
10
30
09
00
07
30
06
00
04
30
03
00
01
30
00
00
0
Figure 4 illustrates the combined activity levels, using Fox Unit program
schedules and the overall facility schedules.
Figure 4: Weighted Activity Levels, 7 Days, Overall Plus Fox Unit
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
M
on
0
M 0:0
on
0
12
Tu :00
e
00
Tu :00
e
1
W 2:0
ed
0
0
W 0:0
0
ed
12
:
Th
00
u
00
Th :0
0
u
12
:0
Fr
0
i0
0:
Fr 00
i1
2
Sa :00
t0
0
Sa :00
t1
Su 2:0
0
n
00
:
S
un 00
12
:0
0
0
Overall
Programs
June 4 - 7, 2012
A-25
Identifying Current Relieved Coverage Practices (See Attach. 2)
In the next round of meetings, the working group will build a new “coverage plan”
from the ground up, hour by hour and day by day. This will be compared to
current relieved coverage practices which are delivered through the current
schedule and minimum staffing requirements.
Figure 5 illustrates the current coverage plan that results from the implementation
of current rosters and posts.
Figure 5: Graph of Current Coverage Plan, 7 Days
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
M
on
00
:0
M
0
on
12
:0
Tu
0
e
00
:0
Tu
0
e
12
:0
W
0
ed
00
:0
W
0
ed
12
Th :00
u
00
:0
Th
0
u
12
:0
0
Fr
i0
0:
00
Fr
i1
2:
00
Sa
t0
0:
Sa 00
t1
2
Su :00
n
00
:0
Su
0
n
12
:0
0
0
Figure 6 illustrates the current coverage plan for Mondays.
Figure 6: Current Coverage Plan, Mondays
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
00
22
00
20
00
18
00
16
00
14
00
12
00
10
00
08
00
06
00
04
00
02
00
00
0
June 4 - 7, 2012
A-26
Summary
During the second round of work, opportunities to “work smarter” were explored
by the group. These included change the way the things are done at MDC, as
well as the times they are done.
Additional details are provided in the attachments to this report.
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF WORK (June 18 – 21, 2012)
All MDC employees and stakeholders are invited to review this report and to offer
their corrections, concerns and suggestions to a working group member, or to the
consultant, Rod Miller, at [email protected].
•
Review these notes and submit your questions, concerns or additions.
•
Answer the following questions:
o Are there other changes in the scheduling of activities that
o Are there ways to improve procedures and practices that would
o Are there times in which current relieved staff coverage is
and procedures?
o Are there times at which current staffing levels may be
Attachment 1: Activity Schedules and Graphs…………….
1.1
Attachment 2: Current Relieved Security Posts……………
2.1
Attachment 3: Transcriptions of Flipcharts………………….
3.1
Notes from Second Round of Meetings
A-27
MDC Staffing Analysis ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT1: Current Coverage Plan—Relieved Security Posts
Fox Unit Classroom Schedule
Activity
Math
Social Studies
Science
Reading, Math
English
Reading
LA and SS
Science
Alcohol Treatment
Program
NAMI
Honor Dorm Women
Choir
Enriched English
Thinking for Change
Math Essentials
Thinking for Change
Church of Christ[M]
Church Alive [F]
Calvary
Sagebrush
Copper Point,
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
United Methodist
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Jehovah/Legacy
Jehovah/Victory
North Valley
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Calvary
Olive Tree
Calvary
Calvary
Start
Time
(00002400)
0730
0730
0730
0730
0730
0730
0730
0730
End
Time
(00002400)
1630
1630
1530
1630
1630
1630
1630
1530
Weight
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
1000
0930
1200
1100
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
1800
1530
1730
1530
0800
2000
1750
1900
1730
1030
1
1
1
1
1
x
x
0900
1230
1800
1100
1330
1900
1
1
1
x
x
x
1700
1630
1700
1730
1730
1630
1800
1600
1100
1100
1800
1800
0900
0830
2000
1930
2000
1930
1930
2000
2000
1700
1330
1330
2000
2000
1000
0930
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sa
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
Activity
St Josephina
Faith Evangelical
Faith Evangelical
Roman Catholic
Believers
Gideons
Sagebrush/Glorybound
Two groups
Glorybound
Legacy
7th Day
Gospel Light
Calvary
Jehovah Witness
Family Worship Center
Buddhist
Roman Catholic
Buddhist
Copper Point
Copper Point
Roman Catholic
New Life
Roman Catholic
Illegible
Calvary
Calvary
Church Alive
Mennonites
Hoffmantown
Calvary
Church Alive
New Beginnings
Casa del Ray
Potters House
First Family
Copper Pointe
Heritage
Calvary
Detmer et al
Roman Catholic
Detmer et al
Start
Time
(00002400)
1000
1100
1700
1700
1100
0900
0930
0900
1300
1700
1730
1600
1800
1900
1900
1000
1200
1030
1200
1200
0900
1000
1100
1130
1730
1830
0900
1000
1230
1200
1000
1130
1130
1100
1200
1300
1600
1600
0900
1000
0900
End
Time
(00002400)
1200
1400
1900
1900
1330
1000
1300
1230
1400
2000
1830
1800
1900
2000
2000
1100
1300
1130
1400
1400
1000
1200
1200
1200
1900
2000
1100
1130
1400
1400
1400
1230
1230
1300
1300
1400
1800
1800
1030
1130
1030
Weight
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
Tu
W
x
x
x
x
Th
F
A-28
Sa
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
0000
Graph: Monday Classroom Schedule, Fox Unit
Monday
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20:00
16:00
Sun 12:00
08:00
04:00
Sun 00:00
20:00
16:00
Sat 12:00
08:00
04:00
Sat 00:00
20:00
16:00
Fri 12:00
08:00
04:00
Fri 00:00
20:00
16:00
Thu 12:00
08:00
04:00
Thu 00:00
20:00
16:00
Wed 12:00
08:00
04:00
Wed 00:00
20:00
16:00
Tue 12:00
08:00
04:00
Tue 00:00
20:00
16:00
Mon 12:00
08:00
04:00
Mon 00:00
A-29
Graph: 7-Day Classroom Schedule, Fox Unit
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A-30
Activity
Breakfast New
Court Pulls, Prep
for Transport
Lockdown
Mornings
Shift Change
Graves to Days
Visiting- Video,
morning
Prof Visits
Inmates In
Dayrooms
(Unlocked)
Lunch New
Lockdown
Afternoons
Shift Change
Days to Swing
Visiting- Video,
afternoon/evening
Prof Visits
Inmates In
Dayrooms
(Unlocked)
Dinner, Fri Sat
Dinner, exc Fri
Sat
Lockdown Nights
Shift Change
Swing to Graves
End
Start
Time Time
(0000- (00002400) 2400)
0500
0630
Weight
Abridged Overall Activity Schedule, Security Posts, Showing
Possible Changes in Breakfast and Lunch Timing
3
M
x
Tu
x
W
x
Th
x
F
x
Sat Sun
x
x
0530
0800
2
x
x
x
x
x
0630
0800
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0630
0700
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0800
1330
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0800
1400
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0800
1400
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1100
1230
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1400
1600
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1430
1500
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
1830
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
2000
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
2200
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1730
1800
3
x
x
1800
1900
3
x
x
x
x
2200
2400
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2230
2300
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
0000
Graph: Monday, Intermittent Activities
Monday
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
20:30
17:00
13:30
10:00
06:30
03:00
23:30
20:00
16:30
13:00
09:30
06:00
02:30
23:00
19:30
16:00
12:30
09:00
05:30
02:00
22:30
19:00
15:30
Thu 12:00
08:30
05:00
01:30
22:00
18:30
15:00
11:30
08:00
04:30
01:00
21:30
18:00
14:30
11:00
07:30
04:00
00:30
21:00
17:30
14:00
10:30
07:00
03:30
Mon 00:00
A-31
Graph: 7-Days, Intermittent Activities
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A-32
Comparison of Activity Levels, With/Without Meal Changes. Monday
Revised meal schedule in Red
Monday
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
S2
3
2
1
S1
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
0
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
Monday
0000
0000
0
A-33
Graph: Classroom Schedule (Rear) and Overall
Activities, 7 Days
12
10
8
6
4
e
2
00
0
12
:
:0
n
00
Su
Su
n
t1
2:
0:
0
Sa
t0
2:
Sa
Fr
i1
00
0
00
00
0:
:0
Fr
i0
12
Th
u
Th
u
00
:0
0
0
0
:0
12
W
ed
W
ed
00
:0
:0
0
0
0
12
Tu
e
Tu
e
00
:0
12
:0
M
on
Overall
Programs
Graph: Classroom Schedule Overall Activities, 7 Days, Stacked
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
00
Tu :00
e
12
:0
W
0
ed
00
:0
W
0
ed
12
Th :00
u
00
Th :00
u
12
:0
0
Fr
i0
0:
00
Fr
i1
2:
Sa 00
t0
0:
Sa 00
t1
2
Su :00
n
00
Su :00
n
12
:0
0
Tu
e
12
:0
0
M
on
00
:0
0
0
M
on
M
on
00
:0
0
0
0
Programs
Overall
A-34
ATTACHMENT 2: Current Coverage Plan—Relieved Security Posts
Code
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D18
D19
D10
D11
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
SI1
Post or
Description
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Rover
KP1
KP2
Rover
Detail
BCCT
BCCT
MATS
Sewing
Recycling
Recycling
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Rover
Rover
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Pods
Rover
Rover
Master Cont1
Master Cont2
Master Cont3
Perimeter
Pods 24/7
Start
Time
(00002400)
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0600
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
End
Time
(00002400)
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
1500
1500
1800
1500
1500
1500
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2400
2400
Empl.
Class.
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sat
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Code
SI2
SI3
SI4
SI5
SI6
SI7
SI8
SI9
SI10
SI11
SI12
SI13
SI14
SI17
SI18
HSU1
HSU2
HSU3
HSU4
HSU4
HSU5
HSU7
HSU8
HSU9
HSU
HSU
HSU
HS11
HS12
RDT1
RDT2
RDT4
RDT5
RDT6
RDT8
RDT9
RD10
RD11
RD12
RD13
RD14
Post or
Description
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Rover
Rover
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
Chem.(12s)
Rover
Rover
Rover-Med
Infirmary/Med
Infirmary/Med
Release 24/7
Release 16/7
Processing
Male Floor
Female Floor
Arraignment1
Arraignment2
Arraignment3
ID
LEA
Lobby
Shuttle
Officer
A-35
Start
Time
(00002400)
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0700
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
0000
0700
0000
0000
0000
0700
0700
0700
0000
0000
0700
End
Time
(00002400)
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2300
2300
2300
1900
2400
2400
1500
2400
2400
2400
2300
2400
2400
2400
1500
1500
1500
2400
2400
2300
Empl.
Class.
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tu
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Th
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sat
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Su
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
0900
0800
0700
0600
0500
0400
0300
0200
0100
0000
21:00
15:30
10:00
04:30
23:00
17:30
Sat 12:00
06:30
01:00
19:30
14:00
08:30
03:00
21:30
16:00
10:30
05:00
23:30
18:00
12:30
07:00
01:30
20:00
14:30
09:00
03:30
22:00
16:30
11:00
05:30
Mon 00:00
A-36
Graph of Current Coverage Plan, 7 Days
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Current Coverage Plan: Mondays
Monday
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ATTACHMENT3: Transcription of Notes from Flipcharts
Intermittent Activities
Right person? E.g. civilian vs. sworn
Critical posts, sensitive
Roster set by prior shift Lt.
Shift Change—
Overlap
Handoff
Quick check and briefing
Incoming does formal count
“Lockdown” in place at time
Except RDT, at court, transport
Lockdown ± 1400 – 1530
Except some programs
0600 – 0800
1400 – 1600
2200 – 2400
Meals
0300 – 0500
Honor and ATP first
Then from segregation back
0000 kitchen workers pulled (30 ±)
Why is breakfast so early?
A. Too much to do
B. Get it done before shift change
C. At 0600 inmates go to court, recycle crews, etc.
D. Have only one meal on each shift
E. Staff are hungry at 3, might as well feed inmates too
But…. Breakfast at 0300 interferes with meds.
A-37
How meals are servedThree, 30-min rounds
Inmates (white uniforms) push to unit
Inmates (blue) take in from sallyport
Pod officer stands next to cart
How long has breakfast been this early?
“Since we have been here.”
Visiting is 0800 – 1330, 1600 – 2030, 7 days per week
Some visiting monitors in disrepair
Sick Call—is at pods
0800 – 1600 M-F
On demand Sat and Sunday
Programs conflict with:
Food (lunch)
Laundry
Commissary
More
Kiosk (new). Triage, face to face. 700+
McClendon attorneys are often “shopping” with inmates
Courts
“Recalculate”
Explored video for attorney visits?
Public Defender has a video system in their office, as does Metro
court
Attorney visits- different room?
Programs don’t stick to schedules
A-38
Too responsive? (to attorneys, others)
DETAILS (intermittent)
One on Ones
Hospital
Maintenance
UNFUNDED POSTS
Sewing
MATS
Recycling
Landfill
Court remand
IN PLAY?
Meals
Laundry
NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Northpointe
Compass
When does it happen?
What to do with it?
A-39
OBJECTIVES [for possibly changing meal schedules]
• 7 hour “down” time for 90%+ of the inmates—help with their
health and attitudes
• Reduce activity/movement as a result
• Reduce conflict between current activities
o Meals
o Counts
o Laundry
o Meds
o Programs
• Reduce time between Lunch and Dinner
PODS
Hour to hour “logjams”
Largely due to how each Pod Officer runs the Pod
Say “no”, Command Calls
Poor first line supervision
Due to inconsistent coverage
and growing administrative tasks that keep them at desks
ISSUES
Range of variation between units on many issues.
Classification ≠ actual housing, often
Secondary impact of Honor Pods on other pods
A-40
Excerpt: Working Chart—changing meal times
A-41
Excerpt (continued)
A-42
A-43
NOTES FROM 3rd ROUND OF STAFFING ANALYSIS MEETINGS
June 18-21, 2012
[email protected]
1
Notes from Second Round of Meetings………………………
2
Attachment 1: Article from American Jails Magazine…….
1.1
FINDINGS AND ISSUES TO CONSIDER
Question: Are there other changes in the scheduling of activities that
In addition to looking at when activities happen, there may be ways to change
operational practices to increase efficiency and reduce demands on staff.
Question: Are there ways to improve procedures and practices that would
Question: Are there times in which current relieved staff coverage is
and procedures?
Question: Are there times at which current staffing levels may be
Notes from 3rd Round of Staffing Analysis Meetings
June 18-21, 2012
A-44
1
June 18-21, 2012
A-45
of persons.
THIRD ROUND OF MEETINGS
Attendance
The second round of work focused on intermittent activities and the timing of
daily tasks at the facility. Three work sessions were held over a four-day period:
Monica Romero, Corrections Officer
Chief Ramon Rustin
A-46
June 18-21, 2012
REVISING MEAL SCHEDULE
The second round of work (earlier in June) identified the impact of the current
meal schedule on operations and staffing. After a great deal of discussion, the
group recommended changing the meal schedule, moving breakfast and lunch
later. Figure 1 highlights the changes.
Figure 1: Overall Intermittent Activities
Activity
Start End W
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Breakfast New
0500
0630
3
x
x
x
x
x
0530
0800
2
x
x
x
x
x
Lockdown Mornings
0630
0800
1
x
x
x
x
0630
0700
3
x
x
x
0800
1330
1
x
x
Prof Visits
0800
1400
1
x
0800
1400
3
Lunch New
1100
1230
Lockdown Afternoons
1400
Sat Sun
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1430
1500
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
1830
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Prof Visits
1600
2000
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1600
2200
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dinner, Fri Sat
1730
1800
3
x
x
Dinner, exc Fri Sat
1800
1900
3
x
x
x
x
Lockdown Nights
2200
2400
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2230
2300
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Figure 2 illustrates the changes in activity levels for Mondays, using revised
June 18-21, 2012
A-47
Figure 2: Revised Weighted Intermittent Activity Levels, Mondays
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
30
22
00
21
30
19
00
18
30
16
00
15
30
13
00
12
30
10
00
09
30
07
00
06
30
04
00
03
30
01
00
00
0
DEVELOPING A “COVERAGE PLAN”
This third round of work primarily focused on developing a “coverage plan” for
relieved posts and positions. A “coverage plan” is not the same as a schedule,
which assigns individual employees to specific times and days of work. A
coverage plan is similar to “Unit Staffing” summary that describes the posts and
positions that are to be manned on each shift.
But the coverage plan does not rely on the current shift configurations (number of
hours per shift, rotation of days off) to as the starting point. Rather, a coverage
plan identifies specific tasks and activities that need to be staffed and describes:
•
•
•
The lobby post illustrates the difference. In the Unit Staffing plan, the lobby post
is filled on the day and swing shifts—ending at 2300. The coverage plan is more
accurate, showing the End Time for the post as 2000, which is the actual time the
post is closed.
A-48
June 18-21, 2012
As a baseline, the current coverage plan is documented in a table (Figure 2) and
as a graph (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Graph of Current Coverage Plan, 7 Days
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
M
on
00
:0
M
0
on
12
:0
Tu
0
e
00
:0
Tu
0
e
12
:0
W
0
ed
00
:0
W
0
ed
12
Th :00
u
00
:0
Th
0
u
12
:0
0
Fr
i0
0:
00
Fr
i1
2:
00
Sa
t0
0:
Sa 00
t1
2
Su :00
n
00
:0
Su
0
n
12
:0
0
0
Figure 4: Current Coverage Plan—Relieved Security Posts
Code
Post or
Description
Start
Time
(00002400)
End
Time
(000
02400
)
Empl.
Class.
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sat
Su
D1
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D2
D3
Pods
Pods
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D4
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D5
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D6
D7
Pods
Pods
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D8
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D18
D19
KP1
KP2
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D11
Detail
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D12
BCCT
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
Code
Post or
Description
A-49
June 18-21, 2012
Start
Time
(00002400)
End
Time
(000
02400
)
Empl.
Class.
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sat
Su
x
x
D13
BCCT
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
D14
MATS
0600
1800
CO
x
x
x
x
x
D15
Sewing
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
D16
Recycling
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
D17
Recycling
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
E1
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E2
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E3
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E4
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E5
E6
Pods
Pods
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E7
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E8
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
E9
E10
Rover
Rover
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F1
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F2
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F3
F4
Pods
Pods
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F5
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F6
Pods
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F7
F8
Pods
Pods
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F9
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F10
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F11
F12
Master Cont1
Master Cont2
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F13
Master Cont3
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F14
Perimeter
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI1
SI2
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI3
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI4
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI5
SI6
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI7
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI8
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Code
Post or
Description
A-50
June 18-21, 2012
Start
Time
(00002400)
End
Time
(000
02400
)
Empl.
Class.
M
Tu
W
Th
F
Sat
Su
SI9
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI10
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI11
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI12
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI13
SI14
Pods 16/7
Pods 16/7
0700
0700
2300
2300
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI17
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SI18
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU1
HSU2
Pods 24/7
Pods 24/7
0000
0000
2400
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU3
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU4
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU4
Pods 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU5
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU7
Pods 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU8
HSU9
Pods 16/7
Chem.(12s)
0700
0700
2300
1900
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU
Rover
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HSU
HS11
Rover-Med
Infirmary/Med
0700
0000
1500
2400
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
HS12
Infirmary/Med
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT1
Release 24/7
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT2
Release 16/7
0700
2300
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT4
Processing
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT5
Male Floor
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT6
Female Floor
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RDT8
RDT9
Arraignment1
Arraignment2
0700
0700
1500
1500
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RD10
Arraignment3
0700
1500
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RD11
ID
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RD12
RD13
LEA
Lobby
Shuttle
Officer
0000
0800
2400
2000
CO
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0000
2400
CO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RD14
June 18-21, 2012
A-51
DRAFTING THE COVERAGE PLAN
During the third round work sessions, participants identified the specific posts
need and their hours/days of operation. Most of the posts correlated with the
current Unit Staffing plan because they were operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. Pods CO’s are a good example: that post is operated continuously for
every pod.2
Because of the correlation with the current staffing plan, this narrative identifies
differences/changes that were discussed. The group looked at coverage needs
by function, not unit, focusing on:
1. Supervising inmates in housing pods
2. Supervising inmates when they are not in housing units (visits, medical,
programs, etc.)
3. Supervising movement of inmates and others
4. Delivering programs and services
5. Controlling access and egress (lobby, perimeter, etc.)
6. Ensuring safety and security at all times
7. Providing breaks for employees
8. Supervising employees
Drafting the coverage plan required examining current policies, procedures and
practices. Participants were encouraged to question current practices when there
were opportunities to improve effectiveness or efficiency.
Some of the possible changes and refinements discussed during the work
sessions are identified below. These will be explored further during the work
sessions on June 16-17-18.
Changes and Refinements Discussed in Third Round
2
•
Refine the hours of operation for the lobby post
•
Provide a second Pod Officer for two pods in Unit E for day and swing
shifts. The assignment of these two extra officers to specific pods will be
flexible. This is in response to the increasing number of incidents in this
unit. These officers will be available for other tasks away from the pod
during lockdowns.
•
Add a second Pod Officer when the occupancy of a pod is more than the
ceiling that has been established for that classification of inmate
•
Assign an officer to escort the delivery of medications, commissary and
laundry in the pods—allowing the Pod Officer to continue to focus on
The Pod CO post was closed on the graveyard shift in some pods in recent years. This practice was ended when
additional employees were provided to MDC. The working group participants did not propose closing any housing pod
posts, in large part because of the severe crowding of the facility.
June 18-21, 2012
A-52
supervising the entire pod rather than being distracted. Participants
thought that the pod officer would want to supervise food service directly.
•
Refine the scheduling of food, meds, commissary and laundry to the pods
to reduce the time wasted by “logjams” when more than one of these
arrives at the pod at the same time.
•
Consider bring an officer with other activities that distract the Pod Officer,
such as meals, laundry or commissary.
•
Redefine the role of the unit “rovers” and ensuring that they stay within the
unit to provide supervision and security for the internal corridors.
•
Provide inmate movement and escort officers who will be responsible for
movement between units, allowing Unit Rovers to remain in their unit.
•
Provide supervision of the main corridor at two or three locations in the
corridor (similar to, but not identical to the former “Hall Monitor” posts).
•
Add the provision of employee breaks into the coverage plan, at the
appropriate times during the shift.
•
Add an officer to supervise and secure the rear dock area
•
Explore stabilizing the Master Control posts, making it a specialized post
and ensuring it is staffed by persons who are proficient.
•
Develop a broader “inmate behavior management” system that offers
incentives for all inmates, not just those in the Honor Pods. Attachment 1
provides an article for American Jails magazine that identifies the types of
incentives that may be used.
•
Increase first line supervision for employees.
•
As classification processes are improved, it is essential to assign inmates
to pods based on their classification. Creation of the 8 honor pods has
caused problems with many of the other pods because mixed
classifications have resulted.
•
Should reduce movement of inmates between pods as much as possible.
New classification procedures, coupled with implementation of a system of
incentives, should govern movement.
•
Improve perimeter security, add as post not as a sidebar for Master
Control.
•
Consider making the warehouse post an officer rather than a civilian.
•
Revisit and refine the definition of Unit Management.
•
Create a “security team” that would be assigned to every shift. Although
trained for response, their primary role would be to ensure consistent
security and prevent problems.
June 18-21, 2012
A-53
NON-RELIEVED POSTS AND POSITIONS and “DETAILS”
In addition to the relieved posts and positions (the majority of hours worked),
there are two other types of coverage:
•
Non-relieve posts and positions (such as the Chief)—these are not
backfilled when the employee assigned to the position is not present.
•
“Details” that occur outside of the scheduled activities, such as 1 on 1
supervision of inmates or supervision of inmates at the hospital.
These will be examined and, where possible, quantified, during the fourth round
of work.
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF WORK (July 16 - 18, 2012)
•
Review these notes and submit your questions, concerns or additions.
•
Answer the following questions:
o Are there other changes in the scheduling of activities that
o Are there times in which current relieved staff coverage is
and procedures?
o Are there times at which current staffing levels may be
Attachment: Article from American Jails Magazine
Published May/June 2001 Issue, American Jails, p. 63
===========================================================
E = MC2:
ENGAGING Inmates by Managing Conditions of Confinement
"He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it--namely, that in order
to make a man or boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.
...Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do and that Play consists of whatever a
body is not obliged to do." Mark Twain, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
How do we motivate inmates to engage in work activities and programs?
I was recently asked this question by a county that is preparing to make the transition into a new
jail. This reminded me of the importance of creating a setting in which inmates are constantly and
consistently encouraged to improve their participation and performance.
Many jails have found that innovative, aggressive and coordinated management of inmates'
conditions of confinements creates the environment in which inmates get involved.
It's a simple concept and it's not new. Correctional managers set policies about all aspects of
inmates' lives-- their physical setting, opportunities, programs, and privileges. We have control
over just about everything for inmates in our custody and care. This can be a burden, or an
opportunity.
Some of the common conditions that are managed to reward inmate performance include:
* improved housing conditions
* increased exercise and recreation opportunities
* expanded access to commissary
* more and better visiting opportunities
Taking an aggressive, coordinated and proactive approach to the establishment of conditions of
confinement can establish a setting in which inmates have constant encouragement to become
involved with productive activities and demonstrative appropriate behavior.
Carefully determining conditions of confinement for the entire inmate population will ensure that:
1. Inmates experience steadily improved conditions of confinement as they
earn their way up the continuum toward release
2. Inmates and staff will find consistency and fairness in daily operations
A-54
A-55
2
Table 1: Conditions of Confinement Continuum
Negative
High Risk
Uncooperative
OVERALL CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
Safety and Security
Attitude
Positive
No Risk
Very Cooperative
Disinterested
Motivation
High Motivated
Detached
Involvement
Fully Engaged
Idle
Work/Programs
Group 1
(lowest)
Occupation/Use of Time
Groupings of Conditions at
Your Facility
Full Time
Group X (highest)
(the number of groupings will vary from jail
to jail)
3 Steps to Create C3: Coordinated Conditions of Confinement
Every jail already has some sort of "conditions of confinement" system in place, but many are
inadequate because:
* conditions are inconsistently allocated to different types of inmates
* few elements are actually used as incentives
* elements are not used to their full potential
A quick three-step process can identify inconsistencies and opportunities:
1. Classify various types of inmates and housing units into distinct groupings that
should have similar conditions of confinement
A-56
2. Select the specific conditions of confinement elements that you want to manage
to motivate inmates
3. Assign variations of each selected element to each grouping of inmates
STEP 1: Classify Inmates Into Groupings
Take a hard look at your inmate population and your facility. Identify inmates that should have the
"worst" conditions of confinement (such as disciplinary segregation) and those that should have
the "best" conditions (such as trusties).
Start to group various classifications of inmates together according to the level of conditions of
confinement that they should receive. The number of groupings will depend on your facility
mission, your classification system, and to some extent the extent to which your facility allows you
to distinguish the treatment of different types of inmates.
To help frame your thinking, consider the diagram in Table 1. This may help to identify some of
the key attributes that will distinguish one group of inmates from another. Add additional
considerations to those identified in Table 1 based on your own policies and practices.
Table 2 offers a hypothetical sample of how a jail might identify six distinct groupings of inmates.
Some jails might have fewer groupings (possible, but not likely) and some might be able to
accommodate more groupings.
Table 2: Sample of Groupings
Level
1
"worst"
Housing Units/Classifications of Inmates
* Disciplinary Segregation
(Male and Female)
Comments
Highest level of security
Lowest level of privileges
2
* Pre-Classification
Inmates who have not yet been
classified
3
* Maximum security inmates
* Inmates in administrative segregation
4
* Medium security inmates
"average"
(male and female)
* Protective Custody (male and female)
5
* Minimum security inmates
* Inmates in programs part-time
* Inmates who work part-time
Inmates who are engaged in
programs or work part-time
6
"best"
* Full-Time Workers (male and female)
* Inmates in full-time programs (or in a
combination of work and programs)
* Inmates in release programs (work- or
education release)
Inmates who are engaged in work
and/or programs full time and who
have earned the lowest security
rating
4
A-57
Make a chart like the one in Table 2 for your own facility. After you have completed it, take a hard
look at it to be sure that it is:
* realistic (can you distinguish conditions for the inmates in each grouping?)
* fair (are male and female inmates treated comparably?, are pretrial detainees
not subjected to punitive situations?)
Make adjustments as needed to correct any problems that you identify.
Step 2: Select the Conditions Elements That You Want to Manage
You already have policies and practices that vary the conditions of confinement for different types
of inmates in your facility. These are a starting point for this step, but should not be the endpoint.
Be creative and consider expanding the ways that you manage conditions of confinement in your
jail.
Use Table 3 as a "shopping list" to identify each condition of confinement element that you want
to manage. This list is a starting point-- there are many additional ways that creative managers use
conditions of confinement to improve inmate performance. In addition to the elements identified in
Table 3, jails report rewarding inmate labor with such incentives as:
* allowing inmates to have radios in their cells (with headphones)
* not requiring inmates to pay room and board fees
* not requiring copayments for medical care
* giving inmates credit towards their court-ordered fines
* paying inmates for their labor (some jails also provide pay for program participation)
Table 3: Shopping List of Potential Tools to Motivate Inmates
(identify those that you want to manage with an "X")
Physical Conditions
Daily Schedule/Security
Visiting
Exercise
Cell occupancy (single, double, or dorm)
Unit Size, Density (crowding)
Fixtures (plumbing, doors) Finishes (carpet, etc.)
Furnishings (fixed/moveable, institutional/residential
Inmate Control of lights
Inmate control of cell access during day
Lights Out
Lock-Ins (times locked into cell for counts, etc.)
Out-of-Cell Time
Frequency of visits
Length of Visits
Type of Visiting (e.g. non-contact, contact)
Frequency (of access)
Length (of access)
Activities Available
Equipment Available
A-58
(Table 3, continued)
Recreation
Telephone
Food
Activity
Entertainment
Television
Movies
Special Events
Commissary
Other Privileges
Access to recreational materials
Frequency of access
Access (hours, length of calls, number of phones)
Type of Calls Permitted
Quality/Selection (e.g. Nutra-Loaf)
Snacks/Juice Bar
Dining conditions (cell/dayroom/dining room)
Work options and desirability of jobs
Library access
Computer access (in housing units)
Location of activities (hsg unit, pod, central)
Opportunities for co-ed activities
Hours TV is Available
TV Content Allowed (e.g. educational, broadcast, cable)
Equipment (number of sets, type of sets)
Availability of Movies/Videos
Content Allowed (e.g. PG, PG-13, R)
Access to Concerts/Performances/Special Events
Frequency of Access to Commissary
Selection Available
Personal Property (more allowed, different types)
Personalize Cell (able to hang pictures, etc.)
Clothing (better clothing, option to use own clothes)
Movement/Mobility within Facility (escort/unescorted)
Extra Time Off of Sentence
Furloughs/Temporary Release
Other
Incentives/Rewards
(use your imagination...)
Complete Table 3 and step back and consider your work.:
* Have you identified all of the existing conditions elements that you manage?
* Have you identified some new elements that can be managed?
* Is it realistic to think that you can manage each element that is checked?
Consider passing the completed chart around among staff and ask for their ideas and concerns.
Step 3: Assign Specific Levels to Each of the Groupings
For many managers, this step is the fun part: creating a comprehensive and proactive setting in
which every inmate is given constant and consistent incentive to improve their performance.
A-59
Table 4: Sample of Assignment of Specific Levels to Each Group
Other Privileges
Commissary
Eneterainment
Activity
Food
Telphone
Exercise
Sched./
Secure
Physical
Conditions
Element to be
Managed
Description of Specific Conditions/Privileges
for Each Grouping of Inmates
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Group 6
Cell Occupancy
Single
Double
Dorm
Double
Double
Single
Furnishings
Steel./fixed
Steel/fixed
Steel
No
No
No
Not steel
Not fixed
Yes
Residential
Inmate Allowed
to Control Access
to Cell- Daytime
Lights Out
Not steel
Not fixed
No
Yes
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
Out-of-Cell Time
1 hr/day
4 hrs/day
6 hrs/day
10 hrs/day
12 hrs/day
16 hrs/day
Number of times
per day allowed
Exercise equip.
available
1
1
2
3
None
Basketball
Basketball
Hours telephone
available daily
Length of calls
allowed
Type of Food
Available
"Extra" Food
None
1 hour
2 hours
Basketball
and Some
Exer. quip.
4 hours
None
10 minutes
No limit
Exer. area
open all day
Basketball
and Most
Exer. equip.
16 hours
(dayroom)
No limit
Discipl.
Menu
None
Basic
Menu
None
15
minutes
Basic
Menu
None
Exer.area
open all day
Basketball
and More
Exer. equip.
12 hours
(dayroom)
No limit
Dining
Conditions
Type of job
available
Location of
activities
Computer access
(dayroom)
Hours TV
Available
TV Content
Allowed
Movies/Videos
Allowed?
# Commissary
Orders/Week
Commissary
Selection
Personal Property
Allowed
Clothing
In Cell
In Cell
Dayroom
Enhanced
Menu
Evening
Snack
Dayroom
Enhanced
Menu
Two
Snacks/day
Dayroom
None
None
None
allowed
No
Cell
Area
No
Housekeeping
Housing
Unit
No
None
No
Orientation
Tapes only
Orientation
Only
No
Evenings
2 hours
News and
Education
No
Part-time
Job only
Housing
Unit
Yeslimited
Evenings
3 hours
Broadcast
Only
1/week
Full-time
Job
Centralized
(group)
Yesmore hours
Evenings
6 hours
Broadcast
Some Cable
2/week
Enhanced
Menu
Three
Snacks/day
Separate
Dining Area
Full-time
"preferred"
Centralized
(group)
Yesmost hours
Days and
Evenings
Broadcast
Cable
3/week
None
None
1
1
2
3
None
None
Limited
Limited
Expanded
Expanded
None
None
Uniform
Uniform
Limited
(Basic)
Uniform
Less
Limited
Uniform
No
No
No
Escorted
Escorted
Escorted
None
None
None
Two
pictures
Some
Unescorted
5 days/
month
More
Allowed
May wear
personal
Pictures
Posters
More
Unescorted
10 days/
month
Most
Allowed
May wear
personal
Pictures
Posters
All
Unescorted
15 days/
month
Personalize
Cell?
Movement in
Facility
Days off sentence
per month
None
A-60
Create a chart that is laid out like the one in Table 4, with a column for each of the "groupings"
that you identified in Step 1. Enter a conditions element from Step 2 on each row of the chart and
then work your way across the groupings making distinctions. Sometimes you will be able to make
a distinction for each group, but more often you will have only two or three levels from which to
choose.
A Plea to Turn Off the TV... This is the time to take a hard look at how you are
using (or abusing) television in your facility. In many jails, visitors are often
disappointed to walk into dayrooms to find inmates sitting around televisions. TV is
a privilege, not a right. It can be aggressively regulated to create a setting in which
inmates are more likely to become involved in programs and work. As long as
inmates have the option to sit and watch TV, many will choose to do so. Consider
regulating TV in the same way that parents do for their children: control the hours
that TV is available and limit the content that can be viewed. Turn off the TV
during daytime hours when inmates should be involved with work or programming.
Ration TV viewing as a prized privilege to reward inmates who are cooperating.
Some jail officials consider TV to be a management tool that keeps inmates
occupied during long hours of idleness, but it makes more sense to "manage TV"
rather than to "manage with TV."
Fill in the chart as a draft and then step back and take a close look at it, asking the following
questions:
* Are there consistent improvements in conditions as an inmate moves from
left to right on the chart? (look at each row from left to right)
* Are the cumulative conditions of confinement (the horizontal columns) appropriate
for each group of inmates?
* Is it realistic to think that you can make all of the distinctions that are described
in the chart?
After you have made initial revisions, pass the chart around among staff, contractors and
volunteers and ask for their ideas. You may even want to sit down with some inmates to secure
their reaction. Don't forget to ask reviewers to offer their comments about the groupings and
possible additional elements to consider.
Increasing Activities... So you've turned off the TV, limited privileges and encouraged
inmates to get involved with work and programs. Congratulations! But how do you meet
the increased demand for activities and programs? Some jails have decided that they want
to turn idleness into productivity by bringing work projects and activities to the inmates-often in the dayroom. It's increasingly common to find inmates working as teams in their
dayrooms preparing mailings for government or non-profit groups, assembling materials
for local schools, and participating in other types of work activities. For more information
about expanding and improving your inmate work activities, contact: BJA Jail Work and
Industry Center....
A-61
After you have secured a thorough review of the draft, make revisions and start the implementation
process. Make periodic reviews and revisions. Consider this to be a work in progress that should
be improved with experience.
The results--better motivated and "engaged" inmates--should be realized soon.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Miller is President of CRS, Inc., a non-profit organization he founded in 1972. He directs the
BJA Jail Work and Industry Center, a national clearinghouse, with funding from the U.S.
Department of Justice. Rod is the author of many books and articles on jails, including the
Detention and Corrections Caselaw Catalog and the NIC Staffing Analysis Workbook for Jails.
Rod Miller
BJA Jail Work and Industry Center
925 Johnson Dr
Gettysburg PA 17325
(717) 338-9100 fax (717) 549-3419
www.jailwork.com
[email protected]
A-62
NOTES FROM 4th ROUND OF STAFFING ANALYSIS
MEETINGS
July 16- 18, 2012
[email protected]
Summary of Recommended Changes- July Meetings.......
1
3
Review of Concerns Voiced................………………………
4
Refining the Coverage Plan.................................................
5
Exploring Improved Policies and Practices........................
6
Next Steps..............................................................................
17
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM JULY MEETINGS
•
Revise meal schedule
•
Centralize functions that affect the entire complex, such as master control,
escorts and movement, rather than staffing these activities at the unit level
•
Create specialized posts that require specific experience and/or training, such
as master control
•
Centralize coverage for employee breaks (eliminate "rovers")
•
Provide officer to secure the rear loading dock area for many hours of the
day-- an officer should be present whenever there is activity at the loading
dock area
•
Assign an officer to patrol the perimeter at all times
•
Post officers in the main corridor to observe all movement, to challenge
inmates (and others as needed) to confirm movement is authorized
•
Staff Main Control with 3 specialized officers on the day and swing shifts, and
2 specialized officers on the graves shift
•
Periodically review the number of beds needed for disciplinary segregation
and adjust as needed
•
Add a second K9 unit (dog and handler)
•
Acquire additional security equipment, such as a body scanner
Notes from 4th Round of Staffing Analysis Meetings
July 16-18, 2012
A-63
•
Add a third officer in Seg 2 and Seg 8 for specific times during the day
•
Provide for escort of high security inmates and females
•
Administer and manage escort as a facility-wide function, not a unit-level
activity
•
Create new "Unit Corridor" post responsible for supervision of the corridors
within the unit, and ensure that officer does not leave the unit
•
Revise/refine delivery of inmate medications in terms of timing, coordination
with other activities, breaks, number of medication carts and more
•
Assign an officer to each medication card
•
Provide an officer to escort and secure other functions that go to the housing
pods, including meals, laundry, commissary, counts, visits, sick call, programs
and new arrivals
•
Ensure immediate back up is available to the scene of an incident
•
Manage the response to each incident to reduce the risk posed to other areas
of the facility
•
Develop supplementary security team(s), to be carefully defined
•
Revise overall command structure to increase efficiency and consistency
•
Improve effectiveness of staff supervision provided by lieutenants and
sergeants
•
Provide one-on-one supervision with non-security personnel (a variety of
approaches have been identified)
•
Monitor actual deployment of personnel by shift (compare scheduled vs.
delivered)
•
•
Evaluate the advisability of using civilians in visiting and the front lobby
•
Evaluate whether any inmates should be assigned to the warehouse
•
•
Improve record-keeping for overtime
•
Consider changes in the current schedule, based on revised coverage needs
•
Approach coverage in some areas as a "zone" rather than moving post,
keeping officers in their designated areas, not in other parts of the facility
July 16-18, 2012
A-64
1
July 16-18, 2012
A-65
of persons.
FOURTH ROUND OF MEETINGS
Attendance
The fourth round of work focused on refining the coverage plan for relieved posts
and positions, evaluating the coverage plan, and identifying non-relieved posts
and positions.
Three work sessions were held over a three-day period:
Chris Owen, Quality Assurance
Stephen Perkins, Lt. Shift Commander
Chief Ramon Rustin
July 16-18, 2012
A-66
REVIEW OF CONCERNS VOICED DURING PROCESS
Rod Miller started the first meeting with a review of the issues that were identified
during the first round of meetings in May. These “concerns” included:
CONCERNS
•
•
Accountability
•
CONSISTENCY
•
o Follow the policies/procedures—accountable
•
Sufficiency—security
•
o Ratios? Staff to Beds, On the Floor
o 2 officers/pod
•
SAFETY
•
•
Hospitals
•
•
“Adding” Posts
•
Do Not Feel Safe When Working
•
Culture changes (fear of inmates)
•
Case managers ≠ Security
•
•
One on One’s [symptoms and outcome measures] -- need to re-examine
how 1/1, and who
Participants reconfirmed the scope and content of the list of concerns, noting that
additional ones had been added during the second and third three rounds of
work.
July 16-18, 2012
A-67
REVISING MEAL SCHEDULE
Participants affirmed the need to serve breakfast later in the morning. Figure 1
illustrates the proposed changes in activity levels for Mondays, using revised
Figure 1: Revised Weighted Intermittent Activity Levels, Mondays
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
30
22
00
21
30
19
00
18
30
16
00
15
30
13
00
12
30
10
00
09
30
07
00
06
30
04
00
03
30
01
00
00
0
Even if breakfast is moved two hours later, it would still occur on the Graves shift.
For the last 90 minutes of the shift, staffing (coverage) must be ramped up to
provide sufficient personnel to serve meals. Later in the process, creative
scheduling techniques will be examined in an effort to bring additional personnel
in only when needed, not having them spend 6.5 hours on the shift waiting to be
needed for 1.5 hours at the end of the shift.
REFINING THE “COVERAGE PLAN”
During the third round of work, the group started to outline a “coverage plan” for
relieved posts and positions. A “coverage plan” is not the same as a schedule,
which assigns individual employees to specific times and days of work.
A coverage plan is similar to a “Unit Staffing” summary that describes the posts
and positions that are to be manned on each shift. But the coverage plan does
not rely on the current shift configurations (number of hours per shift, rotation of
days off) as the starting point.
July 16-18, 2012
A-68
Rather, a coverage plan identifies specific tasks and activities that need to be
staffed and describes:
•
•
•
The lobby post illustrates the difference. In the Unit Staffing plan, the lobby post
is filled on the Days and Swing shifts—ending at 2300. The coverage plan is
more accurate, showing the end time for the post as 2000, which is the actual
time the post is closed.
EXPLORING IMPROVED POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Before moving forward with the coverage planning process, participants
discussed many changes that should be considered in current practices, which
leave a lot to be desired, especially with regard to safety and security.
Several "themes" have emerged during the work sessions:
•
Increase safety and security throughout the facility
•
Centralize functions that affect the entire complex, such as master control,
escorts and movement, rather than staffing these activities at the unit level
•
Create specialized posts that require specific experience and/or training,
such as master control
•
Approach coverage in some areas as a "zone" rather than moving post,
keeping officers in their designated areas, not in other parts of the facility
Centralize Coverage for Employee Breaks
Another example of the need to define coverage before creating schedules may
be found in the need to provide breaks for staff during their shifts. Many
employees are entitled to two 30-minute breaks, or one 1-hour break during their
8-hour shift. But the first breaks may not start until 90 minutes into the shift, and
breaks should end before the last hour of the shift. It is an activity that must occur
in a 5.5 hour period within the shift.
There appears to be a great deal of "slippage" when it comes to providing breaks
for employees who are assigned to relieved posts. Housing pod officers are the
largest single group of employees who need to be provided with breaks.
Figure 2 illustrates the timing and the volume of activity needed to provide breaks
to officers who are working in housing units. The columns at the bottom of the
July 16-18, 2012
A-69
graph show the number of officers needed to provide breaks during each shift,
and more important, the timing of the breaks within the shift.
Figure 2: Breaks for Relieved Posts in Housing Units
By recording specific coverage needs, for only the times they are needed,
efficiencies may be discovered through creative post construction and employee
scheduling, later in the process.
Participants suggested centralizing the management of staffing for inmate
breaks. This should provide further efficiencies and ensure consistent practices.
Implementing this change will redefine the role of the "rovers" who are currently
providing breaks during a portion of their shifts. This change is described in the
following pages, along with many other proposed improvements in current
practices.
Increasing Security Throughout the Facility
Inmate on inmate assaults have increased markedly. Crowding has diluted the
effectiveness of housing and other officers. Some have suggested the need to
expand the number of beds available for disciplinary segregation by designating
more housing units.
July 16-18, 2012
A-70
Participants voiced the need to be more proactive—preventing contraband rather
than just trying to find it after it has been introduced. Similarly, more aggressive
drug testing, beyond the tests for the Honor Pods, was suggested.
There has been much discussion about lax security practices since the beginning
of this project. Effective security requires consistent attention by all personnel.
Policies and procedures must be implemented as written. Put another way,
current policies must be enforced. Security doors are not effective if they are left
open.
Developing and implementing consistent security practices will require effective
first-line supervision. Sergeants must observe operations, reinforce good
practices and correct improper practices. This must be accomplished on the
floor, not in an office (more later in this report.)
Several changes in current practices and deployment have been suggested:
•
An officer is needed to secure the rear loading dock area for many hours
of the day-- an officer should be present whenever there is activity at the
loading dock area
•
An officer should be assigned to patrol the perimeter at all times
•
Officers should be posted in the main corridor to observe all movement, to
challenge inmates (and others as needed), and to confirm all movement is
authorized
•
Main Control should be staffed by 3 specialized2 officers on the day and
swing shifts, and 2 specialized officers on the graves shift
•
The number of beds needed for disciplinary segregation should be
reviewed frequently and additional space should be made available as
needed
•
A second K9 unit (dog and handler) is needed
Participants also discussed the possibility of have one or two officers who would
be assigned by the Shift Commander as needed, reducing his/her reliance on
unit staff.
There was also some discussion about the need for additional security
equipment, such as a body scanner.
2
Plans are underway to develop a new employee classification for control operators, providing
them with additional training and ensuring they have adequate experience before they are
assigned to this critical activity.
July 16-18, 2012
A-71
Appendix A
Staffing in Seg Units
Security procedures for high security inmates were discussed at length.
Participants suggested adding a third office in Seg 2 and Seg 8, for specific times
during the day. These need to be carefully defined by time of day and day of the
week. Extra staff should only be provided for the times specific activities occur.
Escorting Inmates/Monitoring Movement- Centralizing
The extent to which inmates are escorting between major areas of the facility has
declined in recent years, according to participants. Currently, responsibility for
escort rests, in part, with the “rovers” assigned to each unit. But these officers
are tied down providing breaks for more than half of each shift.
Participants noted that there is little accountability for these officers at any time
during a shift, and that they are frequently absent from the unit.
Provisions must be made to provide escort for:
•
High security inmates (red shirts)
•
Females
Escort activities should be administered and managed as a facility-wide function,
not a unit-level activity. This will improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Eliminate Rovers/Create Unit Corridor Posts3
The Rover posts should be eliminated. The break functions of those posts should
be provided as a centralized, facility-wide activity.
The erratic supervision of internal corridors that is currently provided should be
replaced with effective, continuous supervision by a new "Unit Corridor Officer"
post. The Unit Corridor officer would be responsible for supervision of the
corridors within the unit. This officer should not spend time in individual housing
pods, unless responding to an incident.
The officer should only be absent from the unit when relieved for his/her break. In
this way, movement within each unit will be continuously supervised and a firstresponder will be readily available to assist with incidents.
3
It is important to note that the term "rover" does not appear anywhere in the 150+ pages of
Chapter 8 of the policy and procedure manual (Security and Control).
July 16-18, 2012
A-72
Appendix A
Revise/Refine Delivery of Inmate Medications
Delivering medications to inmates to their housing units is one of the primary
activities for which additional coverage is needed. The working group suggests
assigning an officer to each medication cart, easing the distraction that this
activity imposes on housing pod officers.
The timing and logistics of medication delivery should be revisited in terms of:
•
Timing of medications with regard to meals (some meds need to be
delivered before meals, some with meals, some between meals)
•
Coordination of medication delivery with shift changes and lockdowns
(some participants suggested that lockdowns should be used, in part, for
medication delivery)
•
Coordination of medication delivery with staff break schedules
•
Increasing the number of medication carts that are in use at one time,
thereby reducing the time span needed to deliver medications-- in effect
"concentrating" the timing of medication delivery
•
Where and how medications are distributed within the housing pod (e.g.
use "pill window" or other location)
Revise/Refine Delivery of Other Items at the Housing Pods/Unit Level
Several key activities occur at the housing pod level, bringing material and
personnel inside the pod for a period of time. These include, but are not limited
to:
•
Meals
•
Laundry
•
Commissary
•
Counts
•
Visits (several types)
•
Sick Call
•
Programs
•
New Arrivals
Each of these functions should also be reviewed and revised as needed to
improve security and efficiency. Crowding in housing pods must be addressed
with additional staffing, but the working group suggests that staffing be brought
with activities rather than adding another post to the pod. When any of these
July 16-18, 2012
A-73
Appendix A
functions create a distraction for the pod officer, an officer should be brought with
the function to ensure that security does not suffer.
As possible, these functions should work around the hours during which breaks
are provided to staff.
Responding to Incidents and Emergencies
Currently, when an incident is "called," any available officer responds to it,
sometimes leaving another post without supervision. In practice, the primary
response comes from employees who are on breaks in the staff dining room.
There is no effective management of current response practices. There does not
appear to be a policy and procedure that directs responses to most incidents and
their management.4 The closest policy that addresses the majority of incidents
("disturbance") is Policy 8.31, Riot/Disturbance. The text of this policy does not
define a process for assessing the incident and managing the response.
Currently, anyone who wants to rush to an incident is allowed to do so. As a
result, incident scenes are often crowded by well-intentioned employees who are
often not needed. Some become witnesses who are then required to be
interviewed and/or to write reports. Those who were on break disrupt the break
cycle, creating a domino effect on posts throughout the facility as the relief
process is interrupted and delayed.
Current practices are not only inefficient, they are arguably ineffective because
the number and types of employees who respond may cause problems at the
incident site by their sheer numbers. Staff intentions and concern are
commendable, but the results create many problems.
The working group discussed the need to:
•
Ensure that immediate back up is available to the scene of an incident
•
Manage the response to each incident
•
Reduce the risk posed to other areas of the facility
Some of the proposed changes in security staffing, such as the corridor officers
in the housing units and the main corridor, will provide a readily-available source
of backup and assessment. Further changes are needed to direct the nature and
extent of response to incidents, including expansion of policies and procedures.
4
A few specific events are addressed in policies in procedures, such as bomb threat, escape,
riot/disturbance, fire, hostage, employee work stoppage, hunger strike, and mass arrests.
July 16-18, 2012
A-74
Appendix A
Release in Emergency
The proposed changes in security staffing practices will also provide readilyavailable personnel to effect an emergency evacuation if needed, consistent with
policies.
Developing a "Security Team" or "Utility Squad"
There was a great deal of discussion in July, and in previous meetings, about
creating some sort of "security team" or "utility squad" that would be tasked with
a variety of duties, including:
•
Shakedowns
•
Investigations (incidents)
•
Monitoring ongoing security practices (e.g. securing doors, supervising
movement)
•
Expanding Security Threat Group (STG) capabilities
•
Response to incidents and emergencies
•
Patrols
•
Transports
The preceding list presents a mix of functions that are not necessarily
compatible. For example, a security team involved with a shakedown is not going
to be available to respond to an incident.
Several of the functions involve investigation, intended to reduce reliance on the
Sheriff's personnel. These will require specialized training, and there would also
be a need for cross-training.
At one point, staffing for the security team was suggested to be:
•
One sergeant, three officers/investigators on Days
•
One sergeant, three officers/investigators on Swings
There was frequent confusion about the status of some of these functions in
terms of whether there would be relieved posts or non-relieved positions. In
some of the discussions it sounded as though much of the staffing would be nonrelieved.
This team would, in part, be an expansion of the current STG team, which is
comprised of two non-relieved officers working Days. These officers have
estimated that they are currently handling only 20% of the actual workload
associated with effective STG and proactive security practices.
July 16-18, 2012
A-75
Appendix A
In addition to the functions outlined above, there has also been discussion of
having this group:
•
Run stings
•
Investigate "leads"
•
Monitor phone calls
•
Check mail/read mail
The discussions identified a variety of needs but did not settle on specific
responses in terms of staffing and scheduling. These will be examined in the
coverage plan that is being assembled from the Working Group discussions.
Command
During the last round of meetings, many concerns were expressed with regard to
current command structure.5 The following operational concerns have been
voiced, and some may be directly linked to the current structure:
•
Varied practices from unit to unit
•
Lack of compliance with facility policies
•
Erratic staffing practices
•
Scheduling problems, including inconsistent scheduling
•
Conflict between Shift Command and the unit captains
•
Inconsistent monitoring and enforcement of sick leave policies
Under the current structure, there is no "unit" or commander responsible for, and
with authority over, the entire facility. Everything is currently compartmentalized.
Functions that in other agencies are usually under a centralized "security"
command are divided between the units, such as main control, perimeter and
inmate workers. In addition to inconsistent practices, the current fragmentation
creates many "seams" in operations over which there is no centralized authority.
For example, when Shift Command has to balance staffing for the entire facility
because of shortfalls on a shift, he/she frequently is challenged by unit captains
who do not want "their" staff moved to another location. No one is effectively in
charge of the overall operation at any given time. Further, the Shift Commander,
5
Over the course of this project, the consultant has observed confusion about the definition of
"unit management" and the extent to which the current unit managers (Captains in PAC/HSU,
RDT, Units D-E-F-Seg, Transport/CCP and Internal Affairs) have authority over policies,
procedures and deployment. This confusion is a major contributor to the inconsistency of
practices throughout the facility.
July 16-18, 2012
A-76
Appendix A
a lieutenant, does not have the rank necessary to implement decisions when one
of the many captains disagrees.
Changes in the command structure have been under discussion for several
months. A Major will be selected soon, but his/her chain of command is not yet
clear. The consultant believes that many of the problems identified by the
working groups could be addressed by a fundamental change in the command
structure. This will be outlined in subsequent coverage plan drafts.
Lieutenants
Many concerns have been expressed about the current situation with lieutenants.
It has been asserted that:
• There are not enough lieutenants on the current roster
• Those who are on the roster and not supervising subordinates effectively
(tied down with administrative duties)
• Some lieutenant positions have been (are being) reclassified
• Some lieutenant positions are being reassigned
• There are many vacancies in the lieutenant cadre
• Use of lieutenant positions varies markedly from unit to unit
As of July, five lieutenant vacancies had been posted. The working group was
concerned that effective supervision starts from the top. Just as captains must
effectively supervise lieutenants, it is essential that lieutenants provided effective
supervision of sergeants, who are the first-line supervisors.
First-Line Supervision (Sergeants)
Although the current organizational chart shows two sergeants for each major
housing unit, actual practices vary:
•
Sergeant positions are not fully relieved, creating temporary vacancies on
a shift or the need for an officer to "work up" as a sergeant
•
One sergeant in each housing unit is typically mired in administrative
duties and does not provide supervision of officers or other employees
•
Supervision of line staff in the housing units falls to one sergeant-- on a
good day-- who may be absent and not relieved, or who many sidetracked
with other duties
•
On paper, sergeants are available as first responders to incidents, and to
manage incident response, but current practices do not consistently
provide sufficient staffing nor availability for that to happen
July 16-18, 2012
A-77
Appendix A
As stated before, good supervision starts at the top. Lieutenants should be
providing effect supervision of sergeants to ensure they are implementing
policies correctly and consistently. This is not happening.
Implementing “One on One” Supervision of Inmates
Providing staff to supervise "1 on 1’s" (1/1) proves very difficult. In the week
before the meeting, there was many as 12 1/1 supervisions occurring at the one
time. These are currently staffed by correctional officers, which proves very
difficult.
Many 1/1’s are initiated in the middle of a shift. Shift commanders are able to
hold officers over from a previous shift to staff 1/1’s that are in effect at shift
change, or those that are predicted. But once the holdovers have been released,
there is no other source of staffing. This usually means that the shift supervisor
has to take an officer from another post and reassign him/her to the 1/1—leaving
a vacancy in a needed post. Typically, an officer in a housing pod that has two
officers is diverted to the 1/1.
Participants questioned why it was necessary to use officers for this function.
They noted that the primary purpose of the 1/1 is to “detect” any behavior that is
dangerous to the inmate. “Response” to such events is provided by other staff
(security and/or medical). Participants suggested looking into using:
•
UNM civilians
•
Interns
•
LPNs
•
Nursing pool (ried before)
•
Volunteer or paid civilians who are on call
Chief Rustin described programs in other counties that used trained inmates to
provide 1/1 supervision. Rod Miller noted that this practice was developed in
Massachusetts in the 1980’s.
Rainbow Cross said that it would be possible to amend the CHC contract to
provide 1/1 supervision, noting that an LPN nursing pool had been used in the
past as part of the overall medical contract.
There was also discussion of altering the facility to make it possible for one
officer to effectively supervise more than one inmate at the same time. Investing
in doors and windows that would open up views into more than one cell might
pay long term staffing dividends.
Participants also expressed concerns about the way that inmates use feigned
suicide threats to improve their conditions of confinement. "Feeling especially
July 16-18, 2012
A-78
Appendix A
crowded? Owe one of your cellmates money? Talk about hurting yourself and
get a ticket to a single cell."
Other Issues and Discussion
Several other issues were identified and/or explored during the July meetings,
including:
•
New Quality Assurance unit needs to monitor actual deployment of
personnel by shift (compare scheduled vs. delivered)
•
Many concerns about current overtime procedures which create extra
work for shift commanders and give employees too much "choice"
regarding accepting an overtime slot based on where they would be
assigned
•
Whether it is advisable to continue using civilians in visiting and the front
lobby
•
Whether inmates should be assigned to work at the warehouse
•
Inconsistent scheduling of employees because the function is now
decentralized (used to be centralized)
•
Record-keeping for overtime is flawed because it "charges" the overtime
to the sending unit rather than the receiving unit
•
Is the current schedule that provides more employees on Tuesdays an
efficient approach?
•
We have "more staff than ever but we are still short on every shift"
NEXT STEPS
A comprehensive "coverage plan" is being developed. It will distributed for broad
review and comment when it is ready. When finalized, the coverage plan will be
used to refine scheduling and deployment practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B
Classification and Risk Assessment Staffing
B-1
APPENDIX B: STAFFING FOR NORTPOINTE/COMPAS CLASSIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
IMPLEMENTATION 1
Summary
MDC must implement one of the following two options in order to implement and maintain
Northpointe Classification/Assessment:
1. Hire an additional 20 classification specialists for a total staff requirement of 28 staff
members (which includes a relief factor for vacation, sick leave, holidays, and
inefficiencies).
2. Hire an additional 15 classification specialists for a total of 23 staff. This option will
require re-classification of staff from exempt (salary) to non-exempt (hourly); so that
the relief factor can be addressed with overtime (when staff take vacation/sick leave
and holidays the work will be done by staff working overtime).
The additional staff includes replacing the existing 5 Sperion temporary staff and 6 CHC
contractor staff.
Purpose
Determine staffing requirements for the implementation of the Northpointe/Compas
classification system.
Present Conditions – Classification Specialists currently classify an average of 70 inmates/day
(based on the EJS erport of classifications completed over the past year).
The current staff includes:
•
•
•
Six (6) classification specialist dedicated to classification
One (1) classification specialist to process the NCIC for both Classification and CCP (and
calculates inmate sentences), and
One (1) Classification Supervisor
Classification staff work seven days per/week including holidays. Northpointe classification staff
currently includes 5 temporary staff from Sperion. Northpointe assessment staff currently includes 6
CHC Contractor staff.
Replacing the 6 contractor staff with permanent staff which will realize a yearly cost savings of
approximately $100,000/year (contractor staff cost $33/hour and fully burdened County Classification
Specialist cost $25/hour).
1
Developed by Northpointe for MDC, 2012.
APPENDIX B
B-2
Eleven (11) contractor and temporary staff would be replaced if one of the options is implemented.
These 11 positions are not included in the Existing FTEs calculations.
Scope
The Northpointe classification process identifies inmate’s convictions as the focal point of
classification.
To properly classify inmates, an NCIC (National Crime Information Center) report needs to be
run on all inmates classified into the facility in order to review their in-state and out-of-state
criminal history. Along with the NCIC report a local criminal history search is also completed
through NM Courts and NM Justice.
The inmate is classified utilizing a decision tree to determine his/her security level and housing
assignment.
The Northpoint System also provides a section for assessment. The assessment helps identify
inmates’ program needs and risk to the community (supervision level). It may also be used as a
tool for CCP evaluation.
Staffing
The classification/assessment process has been broken down into five process steps with
specified labor standards as identified below and by the attached Process Flowchart:
1. NCIC – 12 minutes (labor standard =.20 hours).
2. Compas Classification & Official Record, & Preliminary Inmate interview – 60 minutes;
(labor standard = 1 hour); 50 minutes for the classification & official record; 5 minutes
for preliminary interview; and 5 minutes for to generate housing assignment and move
list.
3. Assessment – 24 minutes (labor standard = .40 hours). This includes the interview and
self report. The assessment can vary based on which assessment is utilized.
4. QA Audit – 15 minutes (labor standard = .25 hours). Assumed that 25% of classifications
will be flagged for audit and will have to be reviewed which results in an .0625 effective
labor standard hours (.25 x 25%).
5. Reclassifications – 6 minutes (labor standard = .10 hours). Assume 100 reclasses/day.
Classification staff currently work 8 hours/day for a total of 40 hours/week. In order to include a
relief factor it is assumed that staff work a new of 1,690 “effective” hours/year.
APPENDIX B
B-3
The hours required annually for the classification/assessment process were calculated by
multiplying the total classification process labor standard hours by the yearly classifications
required.
The hours required annually for re-classification were calculated by multiplying the reclassification labor standard hours by the total yearly re-classifications required.
The total hours required annually were calculated by adding the annual hours for classifications
and re-classifications. The total annual FTEs required was then calculated by dividing the total
hours required annually by the total annual effective FTE hours. The required staffing for each
process step was calculated by multiplying the process labor standard by the required annual
output and dividing that product by the annual effective FTE hours. The detailed calculations
are available, and are summarized in Figure B.1:
Figure B.1: Summary of Calculations
Process Step
NCIC
Classification/Official
Record
Assessment
QA Audit
Grand Total
Requirements with no relief
factor (utilize overtime)
Current
Staff
2
Requested
Staff
1.1
Total FTE Staff
Required
3.1
5
12.5
17.5
0
1
8
6.1
0
19.6
6.1
1
27.6
8
14.5
22.5

Bernalillo County NM Operations and Staffing Review Metro

Transcription

Similar documents

Staffing Solutions

Publication - Business World Magazine

Farms/Ranch/Acreage - For Sale, $1,975,000 , 0000 Wild River Rd

professional staffing solutions

How to better control staffing costs.

Travel Nursing 101: Get the Facts

Printable Brochure

Unitemps recruiter brochure - Canterbury Christ Church University

The 7 Sinister Sins of Staffing Agencies