County departments are in general agreement with the recommendations.

Transcription

1 Pierce County Office of the County Council 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1046 Tacoma, Washington (253) FAX (253) TDD (253) September 4, 2014 To: Performance Audit Committee From: Bill Vetter, Sr. Legislative Analyst Re: Evaluation of Pierce County Corrections Bureau Jail Operations We are pleased to present this study of Corrections Bureau jail operations in Pierce County. The study was approved as part of the 2014 work program by the Performance Audit Committee, and undertaken to evaluate the opportunities to improve efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of operations of the jail. After a competitive bidding process, the Performance Audit Committee approved a contract with the CNA Consulting to conduct the study. (The consultants are now representing CGL Consulting.) Both CNA and CGL have extensive experience working with local governments nationally on jail issues, including on prior projects in the State of Washington. The analysis in the report was based on interviews with jail management and staff, analysis of staffing data and observations of jail operations, and extensive reviews of practices in the areas of capacity and staffing management. This report is designed to provide the Pierce County Council, Executive, and Corrections Bureau with information to assist in charting a path forward for the jail. The report includes 31 recommendations that the Corrections Bureau has addressed in their response, included in the report. The recommendations include both short term and longer term adjustments that could be made in staffing and capacity management that should reduce the overall cost of jail operations, if implemented successfully. County departments are in general agreement with the recommendations. We appreciate the extensive cooperation and effort put into this study by the staff in the Corrections Bureau and, the Department of Budget and Finance.

2 Pierce County Corrections Bureau Performance Audit Analysis Evaluation of Pierce County Detention Operations Project Team Karl Becker Ken McGinnis Alan Richardson George Vose

3 Pierce County Corrections Bureau Performance Audit Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Project Overview... 8 System Background...13 Jail Operations and Policy Analysis...22 Capacity Management...48 Staffing Analysis.60

4 Executive Summary This evaluation of Pierce County detention operations focused on staffing requirements, and capacity management of the Pierce County (County) Jail System (Jail System). This report is designed to provide the County Council, County Executive, County Sheriff, and County Corrections Bureau (Corrections Bureau) with information needed to help develop a sound, financially stable rate-setting strategy and to enhance the efficient and effective management of the Jail System. This report documents the research approach, findings, and recommendations of the CNA-CGL project team of Karl Becker, Ken McGinnis, Alan Richardson, and George Vose. Our analysis found the Corrections Bureau faces significant challenges that affect both the operational effectiveness of the Jail System and its cost efficiency. Our analysis of Corrections Bureau operations includes the following findings: A classification system that is excessively complex to administer and reduces management flexibility in making the most efficient use of available jail capacity. The current system appears to over-classify inmates, lowering the number of minimum custody inmates An aging physical plant in the Main Jail, with a housing unit layout that can make effective supervision of the inmate population difficult. Excessive reliance on overtime to staff ongoing regular operational functions. There is a gap between current Jail System post requirements and available staffing that drives a significant portion of this overtime. Operational changes can address some of this shortfall, while improvements in overtime management and staffing policies have potential for overtime cost reductions. Use of correctional deputies in civilian assignments. Use of overflow housing units to manage peak population levels. Inadequate staff training. Housing and services for special need populations, particularly mentally ill inmates. Lack of programs for the Jail System population. Absence of alternatives to incarceration to relieve ongoing jail crowding issues. Inefficient command structure. An imbalance between available staffing and facility operational staffing requirements. In terms of priorities, the most significant step the Corrections Bureau can take to improving the efficiency of its operations is to address the issues with the classification system. This is a prerequisite for developing a housing plan that effectively utilizes the capacity available in the Jail System. With the development of such a plan, the Corrections Bureau can then fine-tune housing unit operations and 1

5 associated staffing requirements. Effective classification will also allow for identification of inmates that can be diverted from jail into alternative programs, providing better recidivism outcomes and further reduced operational costs. The next step we recommend is to address staffing issues in the Corrections Bureau, including streamlining the command structure, aligning staffing with the capacity plan produced by the classification system, taking steps to better manage overtime, and providing adequate staffing resources to meet recommended post requirements. Finally, the Corrections Bureau should address key operational and program deficiencies identified in this report. These include needed updates to policies, increased training for staff, improved supervision of seriously mentally ill offenders, and technology initiatives that will improve the efficiency of Corrections Bureau staff. The following report contains 31 specific recommendations to address these issues. If implemented, these recommendations will establish a foundation for further efficiencies that could improve the attractiveness of the Jail System for contracting opportunities. The recommendations, by subject area, follow below: Operational Analysis In comparing current Corrections Bureau operations to generally recognized industry best practices, we found that overall performance of the Main Jail and New Jail is good when viewed in the context of current resources and policies. The most significant operational issue we found was the extent of reliance on overtime to operate the Jail System. Our analysis indicates that 33,513 hours of current overtime may be attributable to a disparity between current operational post requirements and available funding for full-time staff. This leaves a substantial portion of overtime attributable to other factors such as operational practices and management policies. A lack of effective systems to closely manage and monitor overtime use contributes to these issues. Updating the relief factor and developing a more sophisticated system for both identifying where and why overtime is incurred and how to deploy staff resources to make costeffective use of overtime are critical needs. Lack of training is another significant issue for the Corrections Bureau. Deputies currently receive 16 hours of training per year. The recognized minimum standard for correctional staff training is 40 hours annually. Training is one of the most effective risk management tools available to correctional administrators. Providing staff with the best available knowledge on management expectations and how to perform their duties has a direct correlation to operational performance, particularly in a correctional facility working environment where issues of security and safety are omnipresent. The Corrections Bureau generally lacks inmate programs. Evidence-based substance abuse, education, and reentry programs can potentially lower recidivism and provide inmates with productive assignments during their incarceration. The County has a significant number of inmates with mental health issues who often manifest suicidal thoughts and gestures. These inmates require close observation to prevent 2

6 them from injuring themselves. Most jails manage this function by posting a deputy in close proximity to the suicidal inmate, with few distractions that would impede the deputy s ability to provide sight and sound monitoring of the inmate s behavior. This approach is not possible in the current housing units designated for housing inmates with mental health issues. Based on our experience, the Jail System s current supervision practices do not allow deputies to properly monitor potentially suicidal inmates. This creates substantial risk for the County. We also noted issues in command structure related to managing the New Jail and the Main Jail as separate systems, as opposed to two facilities that compose parts of one system. Finally, we found that a number of Corrections Bureau policies are in need of update/revision to align operations with best practice standards. Significant areas of concern include policies on post orders, tool control, and use of force. Operations Recommendations 1. Develop written policy and procedures that will document and formalize in detail the purpose, processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau s current system for roster management. 2. Negotiate a change in the County s labor contracts to allow more management discretion in scheduling vacation leave. In the short term, explore hiring part-time or per diem deputies that can be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu of overtime. If permissible under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are interested in working parttime. 3. Develop a system for collecting data on overtime and roster management that identifies the shift, location, pay period, and category of operational need that drives each hour of overtime incurred. Use this data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of overtime versus additional staff to meet operational requirements. 4. Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close supervision due to the threat of suicide. Unit 3 South F, which is a small linear housing unit where a deputy has the capability of directly observing inmates through their cell door and also on a video monitor, provides an effective solution for this issue. 5. Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all be transported separately. 6. Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost-effective means to provide pre-shift briefing information through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols. The current methodology to brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a daily basis regarding policy/procedure issues and operational matters. 7. Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in-service training for all custody staff. In order to develop and support the training program, the Corrections Bureau should re-establish the position of training officer. This individual will be responsible for organizing pre-service and in-service 3

7 training for eligible employees and ensure that a quality training program is in place and being delivered. 8. Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the New Jail. 9. Explore the potential expansion of video hearings for district court motion and plea hearing sessions and superior court arraignments. 10. Develop a long-range plan to augment the current camera surveillance system with cameras installed in inmate housing areas. 11. Commence development of a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security electronics to control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating the need to carry cellblock keys into the living units. 12. Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of video visitation systems to supplant current visiting systems in the jails. 13. Revise the policy manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post orders, tool control, use of force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update of the policy manual. Capacity Management The long-term decline in the County s commitment population, combined with the recent drop in the number of contract inmates in the Jail System, has resulted in a sharp increase in the total amount of unused capacity in the jails. Since 2012, the number of vacant beds in the system has grown by 51% to 647 projected vacant beds in This means that 38% of the system s total available jail capacity will be vacant in This represents one of the lowest levels of jail occupancy of any major county jail system in the United States. Looking only at funded operational capacity (those housing units that have assigned staff and are actively used for inmate housing), about 76% of the vacant operational capacity at the time of this review was in housing units designated for special needs populations, with the remainder scattered through general population housing units. The primary challenge of jail capacity management is to align the housing of the inmate population with available capacity based on risk profile, while maximizing the efficiency and the effectiveness of inmate supervision. This task requires an effective classification system tied to a facility capacity utilization plan. The Corrections Bureau s use of a highly complex classification system actually complicates effective utilization of capacity by creating a larger than normal number of custody levels. The degree of complexity and the configuration of multiple small housing units make use of the system problematic for Jail System staff. Combined with the Jail System s policy that all pre-sentence inmates must be placed in medium security or higher levels, the current classification system produces underutilization of minimum security capacity in the New Jail. 4

8 Within the Main Jail, Housing Units 3 East and 4 East present the greatest challenge in terms of supervision and housing of the types of offenders presently in the Jail System. The design of the housing units makes ongoing supervision virtually impossible. These units should be closed and the offenders relocated to empty beds, while also opening one of the closed units in the New Jail. Capacity Management Recommendations 14. Compress the number of security classification levels from the present nine levels to a system that utilizes three to four levels. 15. Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female offenders. 16. Remove mandatory requirement that all pre-sentence inmates remain in medium security until sentenced. A review of the inmate s history and review of the circumstances of the charges and arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre-sentence offenders classified as appropriate for minimum security housing. 17. Conduct a formal study and potential replacement of the classification instrument to achieve a more normal distribution of the inmate population into minimum custody. 18. Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail System. Juveniles should be housed in the County s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract detention facility. 19. Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit with trained staff, pending revalidation of the Jail System s classification system. 20. Close Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail and open one of the closed housing units in the New Jail. Staffing Analysis The project team conducted a task analysis of the job duties and workload associated with each post. Our analysis proposes a total Corrections Bureau staffing level of 309 positions. Of this total, 259 positions are correctional deputies. This compares with a current deputy staffing level of 243. Relative to current Corrections Bureau operations, we recommend elimination of 16 positions, adding 22 positions associated with recommended new posts, converting 5 officer positions to civilians, and adding 8 positions associated with updating the relief factor. The net impact of these reductions is an increase of 14 staff. The net fiscal impact of all of these recommendations, however, is a savings of $34.9 thousand. The reduction in overtime created by the update of the relief factor, the salary savings from conversion of 5 officer positions to civilians, and the high level of savings from the recommended reductions in command staff all combine to largely offset the additional cost created by the recommended 22 new positions. The following table summarizes the staffing and fiscal impact of the recommended staffing plan: 5

9 Recommendation Staffing Impact Fiscal Impact ($000) Eliminate one captain post (1) $ (169.3) Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post (4) $ (603.6) Eliminate housing unit posts for Units 3 East and 4 East (11) $ (1,076.5) Add housing unit post to New Jail 5 $ Add shift/roster sergeant post 5 $ Add Main Jail Unit sergeant post 3 $ Add Housing Unit 3 South control post 4 $ Add Housing Unit 3 South post 5 $ Convert courts/it sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions $ (182.8) Update relief factor 8 $ (21.8) Total 14 $ (34.9) The recommended staffing plan addresses key areas driving overtime utilization and should reduce the routine use of overtime to perform ongoing operational functions. The plan also addresses several key risk areas and sources of potential risk and moves the operation of the Corrections Bureau closer to compliance with recognized best practices. Staffing Recommendations 21. Assign one of the two captain positions the operations captain for the Corrections Bureau and end the current dual operational command. The second captain position can be eliminated as a cost savings measure. The new administrative lieutenant (Prison Rape Elimination Act [PREA]/Medical) position can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other support units within the organization, and that position can report to the operations captain. 22. Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail and the New Jail, consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and should be filled on a 24 hours-per-day/7 days-per-week (24/7) basis. 23. Convert the courts/information technology (IT) sergeant post to a civilian position with information technology experience and qualifications. 24. Create a shift/roster sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for shift commanders and manage staff deployment. 25. Create a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing shifts seven days per week to better manage existing workload demands. 26. Create a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7 coverage to provide improved supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit. 27. Create a housing unit post for Housing Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized supervision of inmates on suicide watch status. 28. Convert the low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related experience and qualifications. 6

10 29. Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light-duty post to six months, thereby reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable number. 30. Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to document its accuracy. 31. Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff required to provide recommended post coverage without reliance upon overtime. In order to maximize operational efficiency, we recommend that the relief factor update be applied to the recommended post roster, which incorporates the operational improvements developed in this report. 7

11 Project Overview In February 2014, the County contracted with CNA and its associate for this project, CGL, to conduct a performance audit analysis of their Jail System operations. The project team requested a substantial amount of data and other background information in February to begin our analysis. On-site work commenced in March with stakeholder interviews, a detailed review of facility operations, and assessment of Jail System facilities. On-site review and data analysis continued through May and culminated in submission of a draft report for review by the County at the end of May. The project focused on operational staffing requirements and capacity utilization in the Corrections Bureau, which manages the County s Jail System facilities. In addition, the project team reviewed Jail System facility operations to determine consistency with contemporary best practices in corrections operations and management. The following report documents our research approach, findings, and recommendations. The report provides recommendations for consideration by the County Council, County Executive, County Sheriff, and Corrections Bureau management to enhance the efficient and effective management of the Jail System. Objective and Methods The goal of this project was to identify measures to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the County s Jail System staffing, court transportation practices, and utilization of space. The following specific objectives follow from this overarching goal: 1. Analyze and evaluate staffing, scheduling, and court transportation practices. Are there opportunities to reduce costs or improve operational effectiveness through changes to Jail System staffing, scheduling practices, and court transportation? 2. Analyze and evaluate Jail System space utilization for detention programs. Is the use of jail space for detention optimized based on the current Jail System population, normal fluctuations in the population, and future projections of population? 3. Identify and determine the applicability of best practices in detention operations from other jurisdictions to Pierce County. Are current operational practices in the Jail System consistent with recognized national standards and best practices employed in other jurisdictions? Factors in Assessing Staffing In order to address these objectives, the project team reviewed the operations, mission, and program activities of the Corrections Bureau. In the process of performing this analysis, we examined a number of factors that have a critical impact upon staffing and operations, including the following: 8

12 Facility layout: The design of a facility lays out the framework by which the facility operates. The physical design of the facility, in large measure, determines the minimum number of correctional officer posts required to provide adequate supervision of the population. Supervision approach: There are two general models for inmate supervision, each with a different impact on Jail System staffing requirements. Direct supervision is a method of inmate management which requires continuing direct contact between inmates and staff. Correctional deputies work inside the housing unit in close proximity to the inmates. This allows the deputies to closely monitor the behavior of inmates and enforce rules and discipline, creating a more orderly environment. Violence is often deterred by the presence of deputies inside the unit, and inmates are more easily controlled in a direct supervision operation. Indirect supervision facilities are characterized by the presence of barriers that separate deputies from the inmate population. Deputies observe inmates from a distance, separated by a secure barrier that is often constructed of security glazing, allowing the deputies to view the activities inside the living area depending on available sightlines. Population density: The number of inmates housed in a space has significant implications for the level of tension in a facility, potential for disturbance, and demands placed upon staff in maintaining order. The addition of beds to a housing unit designed for a lower capacity and the attendant issues that go with jail crowding can create pressure for more staffing to assure adequate supervision and security. Inmate classification: The type of inmates housed in a facility will have a large bearing on the need for supervision and the level of risk present in an institution. The classification of inmates in terms of their potential security threat (i.e., maximum, medium, and minimum security) has a direct bearing on required staffing. Inmate movement patterns: The degree of inmate movement for scheduled activities and services within the facility and the nature of that movement (escorted or unescorted) relates directly to the degree of control exercised over inmate behavior and the staffing required to enforce that level of control. Transportation requirements for court and medical services: The frequency with which inmates must leave a facility for court appearances/medical services has a significant impact upon staffing. Prolonged absences by officers detailed to provide security on such inmate trips create a need for additional staff to provide adequate coverage at a facility. Perimeter and interior security systems: The number and use of manned posts compared to technology-based perimeter systems, such as intrusion detection, will have an important bearing on a facility s required staffing level. The nature of the perimeter or internal security systems used in a facility can either create a significant demand for additional staff or reduce staffing needs. Surveillance technology: Technology deployed to provide ongoing surveillance of inmate activity can increase the efficiency of staff by monitoring multiple locations or blind spots in an institution. 9

13 Relief coverage: Understanding officer leave usage and other factors that make officers unavailable for duty is critical to assuring an adequate number of staff to provide coverage of post assignments. Staff turnover: Vacancies not only impact the need to cover posts and the availability of staff to cover posts, but also can negatively affect operations. Excessive turnover can result in staff that lack experience and require additional training and supervision. Training policies: The degree to which training activity takes staff away from their duties creates demands for relief staff, or alternatively, the use of overtime. Division of responsibility with civilian staff: In any institution there are a number of positions that either do not involve inmate supervision or, while there is direct contact with inmates, do not necessarily require correctional officer training. Examples of functions that may be provided by either officers or civilians include personal property management, dietary services, classifications, and commissary services. Prioritization of posts: The ability of management to objectively evaluate facility post requirements and determine which posts can be safely closed under certain circumstances facilitates the efficient allocation of staff. Data Sources Our information gathering and data review process used three primary approaches: document review, staff interviews, and post inspections. To conduct the staffing assessment and develop recommendations, the project team conducted a detailed analysis of data obtained from the County. Our data request included tables of organization for the Corrections Bureau; instruments used by the classifications unit to classify inmates and determine appropriate housing; schematic and other illustrations of facility design; previous staffing and capacity management studies; descriptions of programs and activities; and the facility mission statement, security policies and procedures, budgets, shift schedules, labor contracts, staff assignment rosters, and human resource policies. The project team also requested staff leave data for the last three years. These data were used to update the calculation of the Corrections Bureau s shift relief factor to ensure that staffing levels necessary to cover the current and recommended posts are accurate and understood by the County stakeholders and Corrections Bureau management. The shift relief factor calculation is an essential part of the determination of staffing needs at a facility. Once needed posts are identified and the hours of coverage determined, the relief factor is applied to determine the number of FTEs (full-time equivalents) that should be assigned to a facility in order to adequately cover the posts. Once the number of staff or FTEs is determined, work schedules can be prepared. We provide a description of the shift relief factor calculation later in this report In order to gain a complete understanding of operational practices, staffing deployment, and unique facility requirements, we conducted group and individual interviews of Corrections Bureau command 10

14 staff, line officers, and supervisors in each functional area of the Jail System. These interviews provided a more in-depth understanding of the operational issues underlying the data collected. Finally, the project team observed and reviewed post assignments in both the Main Jail and New Jail during each operating shift, including all three primary custody shifts: 7:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. The review included observation of post activities and multiple visits to the physical plants of both facilities. Additionally, the project team met with the supervisor of the court security/escort team to evaluate the escort of inmates to courts, as well as other Jail System supervisors. A tour was also conducted of the courthouse, including holding areas and courtrooms. The project team also became familiar with the system s inmate placement methodology, known as the inmate classification process, in order to understand how inmate management and housing practices impact staffing. We assessed the consistency of staff activities and post assignments with current operational policies and practices, identifying major strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. Approach to Staffing Analysis Our evaluation of supervisory posts focused on the specific tasks and duties performed by the supervisor in question. Lieutenants serve as shift commanders and are responsible for all activity and personnel during shift. When there is a shortage of personnel due to vacancies, discharge of benefit leave, or other authorized leave, the lieutenant is responsible for either curtailing activities, locating available personnel to fill the vacant post, or possibly authorizing overtime to cover the post. Lieutenants are also responsible for asserting command if a disturbance takes place and also are required to personally report to a disturbance as a first responder. Sergeants in the Jail System are first line supervisors that supervise the activity of corrections deputies who are manning the various posts in the institution. These sergeants directly supervise the deputies and are first responders to emergency situations. Sergeants span of control in the Jail System is an important factor to assess in determining if there are a sufficient number of supervisors available to monitor staff performance and address emergent situations. Our assessment of corrections deputy posts examined both the level of inmate supervision required and the work activities associated with each specific post. Deputies have duties that are mandated by policy/jail System procedures. These are often described as post orders. The post order outlines general and specific duties that the deputy is required to perform. For example, deputies typically perform inmate census counts, arrange for meal service, distribute property/commissary, deliver mail, and release inmates for recreation, showers, hearings, programming, visitation, and medical appointments and to receive medication. Deputies also conduct searches, perform wellness checks of inmates, and supervise inmate workers. Deputies that work housing unit posts are also responsible for sanitation and cleanliness of the units. Deputies assigned to the Booking Area process detainees into the facility, conduct searches, evaluate a detainee s general health, make referrals to medical staff, inventory property, and also process detainees that have been released. A booking deputy must also 11

15 understand complex legal commitment paperwork to ensure that a detainee is legally committed to the facility or release documents are in proper order. Control Room personnel have specific responsibilities to operate emergency equipment and communication systems, as well as observing inmate activity on monitors. Control Rooms are responsible for allowing ingress and egress to and from the facility. Escort personnel are typically assigned to conduct searches, as well as movement of detainees to and from their housing units to core services, such as the Medical Department and Visitation. In assessing staff post assignments, we used the following general criteria: Post assignments should be established in accordance with the goal of maintaining staff efficiency. Post responsibilities are completed by personnel in the appropriate position classification. Officer assignment practices are flexible enough to deploy staff as needed to respond to changing needs through the activity and work schedule while maintaining post assignment security. Applicable local, state, and federal staffing regulations are met. Overtime use is held to the minimal level required to perform critical operational functions. Division and Jail System command structures provide appropriate supervisory coverage. Staff deployment is consistent with detainee classification and housing practices. 12

16 System Background The Corrections Bureau manages the Jail System, which is housed in the Pierce County Detention and Corrections Center, located at 910 Tacoma Avenue South in Tacoma, Washington. The center includes two primary facilities, the Main Jail and the New Jail, located adjacent to each other and connected through an underground corridor. Physical Plant The Main Jail includes a small housing unit that dates back to 1954, as well as a larger set of housing units opened in All housing in the Main Jail provides for indirect supervision of medium and maximum security inmates, meaning the correctional deputies observe and manage inmates from behind a security barrier. The facility also houses the Clinic Unit, which provides medical and dental services for the Jail System. The Main Jail has a reported current capacity of 706 beds. The New Jail opened in 2003 and contains twelve 84-bed direct supervision dormitory housing units capable of housing minimum and medium security offenders. Six of these housing units are now vacant. Counting only the units in operation, the New Jail has a current capacity of 504 beds. The New Jail also houses Central Control, which controls access and movement throughout both facilities, as well as the Intake/Release Unit, which books new offenders and processes releases. In addition, the New Jail provides meal preparation, commissary, and laundry services for the entire Jail System. Population Characteristics The Jail System housed an average daily population (ADP) of 1,149 inmates in While primarily housing felons, the Jail System population in 2013 did include a substantial misdemeanant population, averaging 22% of the system s population over the year. Much of this population was associated with the City of Tacoma contract for municipal arrestees. Correspondingly, approximately 27% of the Jail System population was in sentenced as opposed to pre-sentenced status in Figure 1: 2013 Jail System ADP by Class of Crime 22% 78% Felons Misdemeanants 13

17 Figure 2: 2013 Jail System ADP by Sentence Status 27% 73% Pre-Sentenced Sentenced Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau Like all county jail systems in Washington, Pierce County is responsible for housing charged and sentenced felons, but may house misdemeanants subject to agreement with municipal authorities. The substantial amount of excess capacity in the New Jail creates a significant opportunity for leasing beds to other jurisdictions. Current clients for jail bed capacity include the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) for parole violators, U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service. At the beginning of last year, the City of Tacoma terminated their relationship with the County and now houses their inmates in the Fife Jail. This cost the County roughly $6 million in revenue and led to the closing of three housing units in the New Jail. In terms of demographics, the Jail System is 84% male. Whites make up 58% of the ADP, with African-Americans comprising 26%. Figure 3: 2013 Jail System ADP by Sex 16% 84% Male Female 14

18 Figure 4: 2013 Jail System ADP by Ethnicity 7% 6% 3% 26% 58% Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau In addition to the adult population, the Jail System houses approximately six to eight juvenile offenders at any given time. These offenders have been determined to require enhanced security by the juvenile court s detention center and are subsequently referred to the Jail System. Trends White Black Hispanic Asian Native American Over the last 10 years, the Jail System has shown a brief period of growth, reaching a 1,490 ADP in 2007 before declining and stabilizing over the last 5 years. In 2013, the Jail System population resumed its decline, dropping 11% to 1,149, with a further projected drop to 1,070 in 2014, an additional 7% decline. This represents the lowest population level maintained in the Jail System since the 1990s. Assessing these changes in Jail System population levels requires disaggregating the total ADP into its two primary components: County commitments and contract inmates. Figure 5 shows the relative share of the total ADP of the Jail System for both of these populations over the last 10 years. During this time period, the contract inmate population averaged 156 inmates or 11.8% of the total population. More significantly, changes in the contract inmate population have tended to moderate larger swings in the number of Jail System commitments. For example, the County s commitment population dropped by 18.5% between 2007 and 2010, but the total Jail System population declined by only 12.5%, because the contract inmate population increased significantly during this same period. The exception to this trend occurred in 2013, when the sudden drop in the contract inmate population attributable to the loss of the City of Tacoma inmates accounted for 71% of the overall drop in the Jail System population. 15

19 Figure 5: Pierce County Jail System Population: ,600 1,400 1,200 1, Pierce County ADP Contract ADP Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau (Pierce County ADP includes both felons and County misdemeanors Taking away the fluctuations in the contract inmate population, the most significant trend over the last 10 years has been the sustained decline in the number of County commitments to the Jail System population. As shown in Figure 6, the County s experience largely follows national trends, which have shown a declining jail population since Figure 6: Pierce County Jail System Commitments and National Jail Population Trends 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1, , , , , , , , , , ,000 Pierce County ADP National Jail Population Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau (Pierce County ADP includes both felons and County misdemeanors 16

20 With the opening of the New Jail s 1,008 total beds in 2003, the Jail System has operated with a perpetual surplus of beds throughout the growth and subsequent decline of the Jail System s ADP over the last 10 years. As a result, the County has established operational capacity as a more relevant indicator of the number of jail beds readily available for occupancy. Operational capacity includes only those housing units in the New Jail that have been allocated funds for staffing and support costs. Accordingly, operational capacity does not include the New Jail s vacant housing units. Figure 7 compares operational and rated capacity of the Jail System with the ADP experienced over the last 10 years. The 252-bed drop in operational capacity in 2013 again reflects the loss of the City of Tacoma contract inmates, which resulted in the closure of three 84-bed housing units in the New Jail. Figure 7: Jail System Capacity and Population: ,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, est. ADP Rated Capacity Operational Capacity Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau The long-term decline in the County commitment population, combined with the recent drop in the number of contract inmates in the Jail System, has resulted in a sharp increase in the total amount of unused capacity. The number of vacant beds has grown by 51% since 2012, to 647 projected vacant beds in 2014; therefore, 38% of the system s jail capacity will be vacant in This represents one of the lowest levels of jail occupancy in any major county jail system in the United States. Planning documents indicate that both the County and the consultant hired to assess Jail System needs projected a continued high rate of growth in jail population that would support a 1,000-bed expansion of capacity over and above Main Jail capacity. Projections made at the time indicated that the Jail System population would grow to 1,772 inmates by There was also an expectation that until such time as the facility was filled, the additional capacity 17

21 could be used to generate revenue from municipalities leasing jail beds from the County. This projection of inmate population growth proved wildly inaccurate. In fairness, the County was not alone in projecting that the steady growth in the Jail System population experienced in the 1990s would continue in the future. Moreover, a number of other jurisdictions also expanded capacity with the purpose to contract to municipalities. This ultimately resulted in a surplus of jail beds in northwest Washington available for contract on the market, which further depressed potential demand for the additional capacity developed by the County. Figure 8 summarizes the surplus capacity in the Jail System over the last 10 years. Figure 8: Pierce County Jail System Vacant Beds: Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau est. The design of the New Jail, with all of its capacity in 84-bed direct supervision dormitories, is appropriate given the configuration and amount of higher security capacity in the Main Jail. The use of these types of bed is consistent with best practices in jail design. Moreover, direct supervision dormitories are less expensive to construct and operate. The direct supervision model, used in the New Jail, can be used to effectively manage minimum and medium security jail inmates. These offenders make up the majority of the Jail System population. Accordingly, the large amount of unused capacity at the New Jail is a result of overbuilding based on a flawed forecast of future jail population levels, not the construction of the wrong type of capacity. The staffing ratio in the New Jail housing units is 1:84 (one deputy for every 84 inmates). This is a very efficient staffing model for a direct supervision housing unit. Staffing ratios in the Main Jail vary somewhat, with units that house more difficult populations requiring a higher staffing ratio. Figure 9 shows current staffing ratios in Main Jail housing units compared to the New Jail. The analysis shows 18

22 two Main Jail units with significantly higher ratios and three Main Jail units with slightly lower staffing ratios than staff/inmate ratios in the New Jail. Figure 9: Comparison of New Jail and Main Jail Housing Unit Staff Ratios Current Staffing Ratio New Jail 1:84 Main Jail, Unit 4E 1:54 Main Jail, Unit 3E 1:62 Main Jail, Unit 4S 1:90 Main Jail, Unit 4W 1:90 Main Jail, Unit 4N 1:90 Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau Budget Fiscal year (FY) 2014 estimated spending for the Corrections Bureau totals $50,444,043. With a projected ADP of 1,070, this equates to an average daily cost per inmate of $ The budgeted capacity for 2014 remains 1,213 beds. The reduction in the contract inmate population, which began in 2013 and will be fully annualized in 2014, results in a loss of $7.2 million from the level of revenue generated by these contracts in FY The County accounts for program expenditures for the Corrections Bureau in 11 different program categories. Approximately 75% of spending goes to supervising inmates and providing facility security, food service, and basic medical and mental health treatment. This ratio is consistent with the typical spending allocations of most large jail systems. In virtually all systems, the cost of staff, medical care, and food are the predominant factors driving jail spending. Figure 10 summarizes the breakdown of the program components of the Jail System spending. 19

23 Figure 10: Corrections Bureau FY 2014 Budget by Program Classification 2% Reception 2% Mental Health 4% Release 3% Court Transp. 7% Food 4% Medical 15% Work Crew 0% Debt Service 5% Admin. 4% Care & Custody of Prisoners 54% Source: Pierce County 2014 Budget Roughly 68% of the Corrections Bureau s FY 2014 budget goes to support a staff of FTEs (this reflects the elimination of 37.4 health care staff resulting from contracting out for health care services and 28.6 custody-related positions resulting from reduced municipal contracts). Custody staff ( corrections deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains) make up 276, or 93%, of these positions. Figure 11 summarizes Corrections Bureau staffing by position over the last four years. 20

24 Source: Pierce County 2014 Budget Figure 11: Corrections Bureau Staffing, FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Bureau chief Physician Detective sergeant Nurse practioner Correctional captain Physician assistant Nurse supervisor Mental health manager Budget & fiscal manager Health services manager Correctional sergeant Registered nurse Mental health specialist Pharmacist Correctional lieutenant Clinic admin. assistant Dept. computer support Pre-trial services screener Corrections deputy Accounting assistant Licensed practical nurse Correctional technician Office assistant Clinical coordinator Cook Total

25 Jail Operations and Policy Analysis The project team conducted a comprehensive review of Corrections Bureau operating practices and policies. We examined the policy and procedure manuals in use at the jails, observed current operational practices, and assessed systems for assuring compliance with policies. We also compared Corrections Bureau operational practices with industry best practices. The following section of the report highlights our key observations and findings. Roster Management Policies Effective roster management systems maximize efficient use of staff resources through the use of post analyses, master rosters, daily rosters, and an ongoing recapitulation of actual staff utilization. When properly applied, roster management systems create the means by which jail commanders can ensure existing staff resources are allocated appropriately, and staffing needs are communicated effectively. The master roster includes all positions required to operate the jails, their assigned shifts, days off, and assignments. The document details which officers are available for assignment and when they are available, taking into consideration scheduled leave and special assignments. From this document, the daily roster is developed and manpower needs can be projected. The office of the administrative lieutenant conducts roster management for the Corrections Bureau. The administrative lieutenant maintains a software program and database of existing positions and post assignments. Post assignments are designated as either mandatory posts, which must be filled at all designated times, or discretionary posts, which are those posts that serve a less critical function. The administrative lieutenant maintains a listing of personnel, their shifts, and days off. However, there is no policy or written procedure that guides the administrative lieutenant in developing schedules for deploying personnel. Instead, the lieutenant relies on his knowledge of facility operations, as well as guidance from the two captains and the chief of jail operations. Most jail systems of this size document their roster management practices in policy. RECOMMENDATION: Develop written policy and procedures that document and formalize in detail the purpose, processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau s current system for roster management. The administrative lieutenant advises the captains and jail chief of the personnel needs of the various shifts and recommends the assignment of positions to achieve an allocation of staff resources that meets operational needs. A review of the master schedule maintained by the administrative lieutenant indicates an effort to balance the shifts to ensure that sufficient personnel are available on each day to staff-required operations and to minimize the use of overtime to perform operations. The shift lieutenants receive the schedule of available personnel from the administrative lieutenant in order to prepare the daily roster. Each lieutenant then prepares the roster based upon his/her assessment of an individual deputy s talents and abilities. There are certain posts that require training and special skills, such as Booking and the Control Room, and must be staffed by deputies who have the 22

26 requisite skills and training. The shift commanders rotate deputies between posts, which allows them to experience different procedures and practices and enhance their skills. For certain stressful assignments, the rotation process allows deputies to get a break and experience other job duties that are less demanding. There is no policy that dictates this practice, and it is within the discretion of the lieutenants to rotate assignments based on their judgment. Shift assignments are guided by the labor contract, which mandates that shift assignments are made through seniority-based shift bidding, conducted annually. Shift bidding is applicable to deputies and sergeants. Day shift hours are 7 a.m. 3 p.m., swing shift hours are 3 p.m. 11 p.m., and night shift hours are 11 p.m. 7 a.m. A number of staff are on administrative shifts that typically operate during the day shift, or to coincide with business hours. Selected posts, such as inmate work crew, work a 10-hour day, four days per week. Deputies and sergeants days off are based on a 28-day rotation, where at the end of 28 days the employee s days off move forward by two days. For example, one month the employee has Monday and Tuesday off, and 28 days later has Wednesday and Thursday off. The rotation continues every 28 days. This system assures an individual of having part of the weekend off during predictable periods of the year. Lieutenants also rotate, and there are three sets of days off a lieutenant may have: Sunday Monday, Wednesday Thursday, or Friday Saturday. On Tuesday, all lieutenants are present and available. This is known as the power day, when all lieutenants are available for meetings and special project work. The labor contract between the County and the deputy s guild, although mandating bidding, recognizes that the employer has the right to allocate the number of duty posts per shift, but that employees will bid shifts by classification seniority. Seniority is the determining factor for placement within the configuration, with the exception of probationary employees, who are not eligible to bid for shifts. Employees in designated career development positions are also exempt from the bidding process. The process for selection to one of these positions includes filing an application in response to a job announcement. Interviews or oral boards are scheduled, which includes a union member as a voting member. Each candidate is interviewed and graded, then ranked and placed on a list. Selection is made directly from the list. Personnel are assigned to these exempt positions for a three-year period. The administrative lieutenant and low voltage deputy are exempt from this process and are appointed directly by the chief of jail operations. The majority of career development positions work an administrative shift Monday through Friday, with weekends off. Overtime Management The FY 2014 budget for overtime for the Corrections Bureau is $2,275.0 thousand. This represents approximately 9% of budgeted spending on staff compensation. Spending to date through May 23, 2014 on overtime totaled $911,293. The Corrections Bureau projects actual overtime spending of $2,689.0 thousand in This will produce a $414.0 thousand deficit over the budgeted level. Our analysis 23

27 examines overtime management in terms of what factors drive overtime use and the trade-offs between hiring additional relief staff and reliance on overtime. The primary causes of ongoing, regular use of overtime in a jail are typically heavy demand for services above and beyond normal operations (such as extra details to transport larger than expected numbers of inmates to court or to provide security for inmates receiving hospital care), failure to responsibly manage overtime use, or an imbalance between the number of posts required to operate a facility and the number of staff available for assignment to these posts. Use of overtime is also an efficient and appropriate measure to respond to short-term vacancies, fill posts with variable workloads, or staff work functions that do not consistently require a full-time deputy. For these types of job assignments, hiring full-time staff can result in more staff hours than required by the job assignment. Other strategies used to address a difference between existing staffing levels and staffing requirements include periodically closing a post assignment on the shift, merging post assignment responsibilities, and modifying program and activity schedules. These management actions, in conjunction with judicious use of overtime, provide effective and flexible responses to issues created by short-term vacancies and variable workloads. Hiring of new staff, however, remains the recommended response for filling permanent, fulltime posts. The County lacks a system for adequately documenting the causes and use of overtime within the Corrections Bureau. Standardized data on the utilization of overtime by post, shift, and cause is not available. The limited information on overtime made available during this review entailed a significant effort on the part of Corrections Bureau management staff to manually collect and code data on overtime use. The County spends in excess of $2 million annually on Corrections Bureau overtime without the means to definitively determine how and why these expenditures are incurred. We produced the following analysis of overtime from the limited data made available to us. An assessment of the validity and reliability of this data is beyond the scope of this report. In order to place current overtime use in context, we compared projected overtime spending metrics for FY 2014 with the overtime experience of the Corrections Bureau over the last 10 years, from FY 2004 FY As shown in Figure 12, current levels of overtime spending are very much in line with the experience of the Corrections Bureau over this time period and, if anything, are somewhat lower than historical experience. Overtime spending in aggregate and as a percentage of total spending is down significantly in 2014 from the 10-year comparison period. A significant portion of this reduction is attributable to the elimination of overtime paid to nurses. Nurse staffing is now provided under contract and incurs no overtime. Controlling for population and staffing levels shows that overtime spending per deputy and per inmate is up slightly in FY 2014 versus the experience of the past 10 years. 24

28 Figure 12: Comparison of Overtime Spending in 2014 vs. 10-Year Average Average 2014 Difference Overtime $ 3,103,456 $ 2,689, % Deputies $ % ADP $ 1,299 1, % OT as % of budget 6.7% 5.3% -20.3% OT per deputy $ 11,016 $ 11, % OT per ADP $ 2,386 $ 2, % Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau Current levels of overtime spending are consistent with long-term trends. This indicates a significant structural reliance on overtime is a consistent, longstanding practice for the Corrections Bureau, despite significant variations in staffing and facility population levels over the last 10 years. This does not necessarily indicate a cause for reliance on overtime; it simply documents that the Corrections Bureau has a longstanding practice of relying on overtime. More recently, County timekeeping records indicate that from October 1, 2013 to May 25, 2014, Corrections Bureau deputies incurred 32,198.6 hours of overtime. This annualizes to a projected 52,323 hours of overtime on an annual basis. Corrections Bureau data summaries show that 88% of overtime hours were required to meet minimum facility staffing requirements. These reports also provide a code indicating the reason for staff unavailability. Figure 13 shows the distribution of reported reasons for overtime hours designated to meet minimum facility staffing requirements. Figure 13: Overtime Required to Meet Minimum Staffing Requirements Other 13% Furlough/hol. 21% Training 6% Military 5% Sick 26% Vacation 27% Source: Pierce Source: Figure County 1 Pierce Corrections County Bureau Corrections Bureau 1 Of the remaining overtime, the reports indicate that 2,669.7 hours were used to provide supervision for inmates receiving hospital care. This represents 8.3 percent of overtime reported for the period. 25

29 Overtime is also created by management decisions to open overflow units at times of peak population levels. In the first quarter of 2014, opening overflow housing units resulted in 144 operating shifts for these units, staffed entirely with overtime. This accounts for 1,152 hours of overtime. This level of overtime to fill basic operational posts can indicate an imbalance between staff available for assignment and operational post requirement, a conscious policy to rely on overtime in the belief that it is more efficient than hiring new staff, inefficient scheduling/balancing of staff resources, or an inadequate relief staffing pool. In examining potential causes for overtime, we calculated the total number of deputy, sergeant, and lieutenant work hours required given the current complement of established posts and compared this with total funded staff positions supported in the 2014 budget. Our analysis of current Corrections Bureau operations documented the annual number of hours required for each post, whether the post required relief, and the average amount of hours staff are available to work a given post over the course of a year. The Corrections Bureau operates with 181 current posts. These posts in turn require 488,408 hours of staff coverage. Available staff leave data for the past three years indicates that on average correctional deputies are available for active post assignments for 1,623 hours over the course of a year. The corresponding staff availability figures for sergeants and lieutenants are 1,855 hours and 1,809 hours respectively (a detailed analysis of staff availability and its impact upon staffing requirements is addressed later in this report). Figure 14 summarizes the calculation of required versus funded staff hours and shows the current budget funds 454,895 hours of staff time, or 33,513 fewer hours of staff coverage than the level dictated by current posts and operational practices. This shortfall of 33,513 hours from required post work hour requirements compares to 52,323 hours of overtime projected on an annual basis. Vacancies from funded staffing levels would increase this shortfall and provide upward pressure on overtime. In our experience, it is normal for a jail system to experience vacancy rates of up to 5% of authorized staff. The Corrections Bureau appears to maintain somewhat lower vacancy rates. Figure 14: Current Required vs. Available Hours of Staff Coverage Current posts 2014 Funded positions Work availability per position Funded work hours Post hour requirements Work hour difference Captains 2 2 1,809 3,617 3,617 - Lieutenants ,809 21,703 24,196 (2,493) Sergeants ,855 35,242 35,321 (79) Deputies , , ,273 (30,941) Total , ,408 (33,513) This analysis indicates that 33,513 hours of current overtime may be attributable to a disparity between current operational post requirements and available funding for full-time staff. This leaves a substantial 26

30 portion of overtime attributable to other factors such as operational practices and management policies. Inefficient Staff Scheduling The Corrections Bureau reports that 48 percent of the overtime required to provide minimum staffing coverage goes to cover absences attributable to vacation or holiday/furlough time. This suggests serious issues in staff scheduling. As these types of absences are set months in advance of actual leave use, management should have recourse to manage staff assignments to provide coverage for staff taking vacation or holiday time. In order for this system of coverage to work, a consistent number of personnel need to discharge their vacation or holiday/furlough time over the course of the calendar year. For example, if a single individual is on vacation for a week, the facility will generally have adequate staff to cover the absence. However, it becomes difficult to cover vacation leave with relief deputies when too many staff take vacation at the same time, as the need for coverage exceeds the relief personnel available. The County s current contract with the Deputy s Guild allows 10% of staff to be absent on vacation, comp, or furlough leave at any given time. County leave data indicates that corrections deputies have, on average, used hours of vacation time per deputy annually over the last three years. The current 2014 vacation schedule has 244 deputies scheduled for 5,936 days off. Allocated evenly throughout the year, this would correspond to an average of 16.2 deputies allowed off on vacation on any given day, or approximately 7% of deputy staffing. By contrast, the 10% rule allows up to 24 deputies off on vacation, eight staff more than an equalized management of vacation time would allow. This level of absence far exceeds the coverage capabilities of the normal complement of relief staff, and as result forces reliance upon overtime to provide necessary post coverage. As a general rule, staff absence reaches this level during periods that personnel prefer to be on vacation because of good weather, holidays, school vacations, etc. Figure 15 illustrates the difficulty encountered by granting 10% of the workforce off on vacation at any given time. The 2014 Corrections Bureau vacation schedule allows the number of staff on leave to reach nearly 25 FTEs in July. This represents roughly 9 FTEs for the month over and above the normally scheduled number of deputies on vacation. Assuming this gap must be covered by overtime, the cost in July alone of the 10% vacation policy for deputy overtime will approach $109 thousand. As the chart shows, this is really only a significant issue in June, July, and August. A modification to the labor contract allowing management some discretion in equalizing leave usage through the year would save resources and improve operations. 27

31 Figure 15: 2014 Scheduled Deputy Leave Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau RECOMMENDATION: Negotiate a change in the County s labor contracts to allow more management discretion in scheduling vacation leave. In the short-term, explore hiring part-time or per diem deputies that can be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu of overtime. If permissible under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are interested in working part-time. Our analysis shows that current levels of overtime use in the Corrections Bureau are due to a shortfall of relief staff, labor contracts that hamper efficient scheduling of officers, and a long-term practice of relying upon overtime to meet minimum operational staffing requirements. However, determining the degree to which this level of overtime can or should be reduced by adding staff resources requires a more detailed cost/benefit analysis of the tradeoffs between use of overtime and hiring additional staff. Overtime Cost/Benefit Analysis The issue of establishing the most cost-effective means of meeting the Jail System s manpower requirements in its simplest terms comes down to a choice between hiring additional staff or relying upon overtime assigned to current staff. Our analysis shows that due to the salary and benefit structure for County deputies, relying on overtime is often a more cost-effective strategy than simply hiring new officers to address staffing requirements. The relatively high level of starting pay for County deputies results in a comparatively narrow range in salaries between new officers and experienced staff. By contrast, many jail systems have a lower starting salary, but higher average salary levels. For these systems, hiring new staff at significantly lower salaries can be much more cost-effective than the use of overtime for experienced staff. This narrow salary range has the impact of diminishing somewhat the cost/benefit of hiring new staff to reduce overtime. 28

32 The basic model used by most agencies in evaluating this issue is a straightforward comparison of the marginal cost of one hour of overtime for current officers versus the fully loaded marginal cost of a newly hired officer to provide that same hour of work. The basic structure of the comparison is as follows: Current deputy hourly overtime cost = Current average deputy hourly salary x overtime rate New deputy cost = Starting hourly salary x fringe rate Break-even point = New deputy cost/current deputy hourly overtime cost Corrections Bureau data indicate that the average corrections deputy makes $96,823 in salary and benefits annually. After taking out benefits, this equates to an annual salary of $67,005 per year, or $32.21 per hour. Overtime is paid at a rate of 1.5 times the straight time rate, so the cost for overtime is approximately $48.32 per hour. The starting cost of a new deputy is $25.12 per hour, or $52,250 annually. Benefits for staff add another 44.5% onto staff costs, which brings the total annual cost of a new hire to $75,501. The fully loaded hourly cost for a new deputy then becomes $ Based on these calculations, the marginal cost of an hour of new officer labor ($36.30) is 25% below the marginal hourly cost of assigning overtime to a current officer ($48.32). In this case, the break-even point between using overtime versus hiring a new deputy would be 1,563 hours (new deputy cost /current deputy hourly overtime cost). In this scenario, paying overtime is more cost-effective up to the point that 1,563 hours of overtime have been incurred. Beyond that point, hiring a new deputy is less expensive. However, in actually managing a roster, the cost-effectiveness of either option cannot strictly be determined by comparing these marginal rates. The analysis must also take into account the amount of hours required by the post being filled and the number of staff required to work that post. This simply recognizes the fact that hiring a new deputy does not make that deputy available to avert 2,080 hours of overtime. Factoring in regular days off, vacation, holiday/furlough time, and sick time all reduce the availability of a newly hired deputy to avert overtime. Over the course of a normal work year with regular days off, a newly hired deputy is available for assignment 260 out of 365 days (5 days per week x 52 weeks). Factoring in leave for 12 holiday/furlough days, 12 vacation days, and a conservative assumption of 6 sick/family leave days reduces a new deputy s availability for assignment over one year by an additional 30 days. As a result, a newly hired deputy will only be available for duty for 230 days annually, or 63% of the time potentially required for a full-time post (230 days available/365 days required post duty = 63%). Assuming overtime is distributed in a relatively uniform manner throughout the year; this means that a newly hired deputy will be available for assignment to avert regular shift overtime about 63% of the time. In practical terms, this means that if there are 2,000 hours of overtime incurred on a shift, hiring one new deputy will cover 63% of those hours (1,260 hours), leaving the rest to continue to be covered by overtime by existing staff. 29

33 In order to determine the break-even point between using overtime and hiring deputies, we need to factor in both staff availability and the incremental cost of overtime that will still be incurred. Our initial analysis indicated that if the total hours of overtime on a shift are greater than 1,563 hours, it is more efficient to hire a new employee. The formula may be written as follows: Total overtime hours x availability rate > Break-even point (1,563 hours) By applying an availability rate for the new deputy to the total amount of overtime offered on that shift in a year, we can adjust for these variables and more accurately identify the break-even point in overtime hours where it makes more fiscal sense to hire a new employee. Adjusting the formula to identify the number of overtime hours that represent the break-even point after adjusting for staff availability simply requires reversing the formula, as shown below: Break-even point (1,563 hours)/shift availability rate (63%) = Adjusted break-even point (2,480 hours) In effect, it takes 2,480 hours of overtime on a shift before a new deputy can avert 1,563 overtime hours. Therefore, it takes 2,480 hours of overtime to be incurred on a shift before it is more costeffective to hire a new deputy. Since a new deputy can avert or cover only 63% of the overtime offered on a shift, the balance of the remaining overtime must be picked up by existing staff. This means that at an average overtime cost of $48.32/hour, $116,884 in overtime on a shift needs to be expended before it is more cost effective to hire one new deputy. Figure 16 shows in detail how the hiring of new officers compares with the use of overtime over a range of different overtime levels. For example, at 3,000 hours of overtime on a shift, hiring two new deputies would avert no more than 1,890 hours of overtime, leaving the balance of 1,110 hours to be covered in overtime from existing staff. The resulting total cost of new staff and overtime would be $200,909, which is $55,949 more expensive than paying all of the overtime to existing staff. Shift overtime has to reach 5,000 hours before hiring two deputies becomes cost effective. The key point shown here is that it will always be efficient to rely on some level of overtime to meet staffing requirements. 30

34 Figure 16: Savings from Hiring New Deputies to Cover Shift Overtime A B C C D E F G H I Amount of OT hours on a shift OT hours averted by new hire (63%) Number of new hires Max hours available from new deputies OT hours remaining for existing staff Annual cost of new deputies Cost of OT for existing staff Total cost with new staff Cost if all OT paid to existing staff Savings/(costs) from hiring new staff A*63% A-B C x $75,701 D x $48.32 E + F A x $48.32 H - G 1, , $ 75,701 $ 17,878 $ 93,579 $ 48,320 $ (45,259) 2,000 1, , $ 75,701 $ 35,757 $ 111,458 $ 96,640 $ (14,818) 3,000 1, ,680 1,110 $ 151,402 $ 53,635 $ 205,037 $ 144,960 $ (60,077) 4,000 2, ,680 1,480 $ 151,402 $ 71,514 $ 222,916 $ 193,280 $ (29,636) 5,000 3, ,680 1,850 $ 151,402 $ 89,392 $ 240,794 $ 241,600 $ 806 6,000 3, ,520 2,220 $ 227,103 $ 107,270 $ 334,373 $ 289,920 $ (44,453) 6,576 4, ,680 2,433 $ 151,402 $ 117,568 $ 268,970 $ 317,752 $ 48,782 7,000 4, ,520 2,590 $ 227,103 $ 125,149 $ 352,252 $ 338,240 $ (14,012) 8,000 5, ,520 2,960 $ 227,103 $ 143,027 $ 370,130 $ 386,560 $ 16,430 9,000 5, ,360 3,330 $ 302,804 $ 160,906 $ 463,710 $ 434,880 $ (28,830) 10,000 6, ,360 3,700 $ 302,804 $ 178,784 $ 481,588 $ 483,200 $ 1,612 11,000 6, ,360 4,070 $ 302,804 $ 196,662 $ 499,466 $ 531,520 $ 32,054 12,000 7, ,200 4,440 $ 378,505 $ 214,541 $ 593,046 $ 579,840 $ (13,206) 13,000 8, ,200 4,810 $ 378,505 $ 232,419 $ 610,924 $ 628,160 $ 17,236 14,000 8, ,200 5,180 $ 378,505 $ 250,298 $ 628,803 $ 676,480 $ 47,677 15,000 9, ,040 5,550 $ 454,206 $ 268,176 $ 722,382 $ 724,800 $ 2,418 16,000 10, ,040 5,920 $ 454,206 $ 286,054 $ 740,260 $ 773,120 $ 32,860 17,000 10, ,880 6,290 $ 529,907 $ 303,933 $ 833,840 $ 821,440 $ (12,400) 18,000 11, ,880 6,660 $ 529,907 $ 321,811 $ 851,718 $ 869,760 $ 18,042 19,000 11, ,880 7,030 $ 529,907 $ 339,690 $ 869,597 $ 918,080 $ 48,483 20,000 12, ,720 7,400 $ 605,608 $ 357,568 $ 963,176 $ 966,400 $ 3,224 31

35 Figure 17 shows the specific break-even levels of overtime where hiring a new deputy becomes more cost effective than relying on overtime. Overtime must reach 4,973 hours before a second deputy can be justified. At 19,894 hours of overtime, the most efficient mix of new deputies and overtime would be to hire eight new deputies and cover 7,361 hours of overtime with existing staff. Figure 17: Break-Even Points for Hiring New Deputies to Reduce Overtime Number of new hire deputies Total shift overtime Overtime hours averted by new deputies Residual overtime worked 1 2,487 1, ,973 3,133 1, ,460 4,700 2, ,947 6,267 3, ,434 7,833 4, ,920 9,400 5, ,407 10,966 6, ,894 12,533 7,361 Applying this model to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of hiring new deputies versus relying on overtime requires good data on shift overtime and the specific causes for incurred overtime. Based on the difficulty experienced during this project in obtaining basic overtime utilization data, current County data systems do not appear to provide the level of detail required to effectively support this type of analysis on an ongoing basis. Improved management reporting on overtime utilization is a prerequisite for better control and understanding of overtime spending. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a system for collecting data on overtime use and roster management that identifies the shift, location, pay period, and category of operational need that drives each hour of overtime incurred. Use this data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of overtime versus additional staff to meet operational requirements. It must be noted that although this analysis shows that use of overtime can be a more cost-effective approach to filling a post, the savings must be balanced out against the productivity and human costs that can be associated with excessive reliance on overtime. Particularly in a job as stressful and demanding as that of a corrections deputy, routine reliance on staff to work substantial hours beyond their normal duty can be detrimental to morale and security. As a result, generally recognized best practices in correctional agencies dictate that permanent fixed posts requiring 24/7 coverage should be filled with full-time staff, rather than with overtime. The detrimental impact to operations of the amount of overtime required to permanently staff a full-time position far outweighs the incremental savings that may achieved by using overtime to cover post requirements. 32

36 Management of Suicidal Inmates In jail operations with large numbers of commitments and releases that occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week, it is not unusual to have a significant number of inmates with mental health issues who often manifest suicidal thoughts and gestures. These inmates require close observation to prevent them from injuring themselves. The County has a relatively high incidence of inmates that require mental health observation. A recent assessment of inmates who require mental health services indicated an ADP of 64 inmates in need of high-intensity mental health services through the first five months of To address the need for suicide observation cell capacity, administrators have elected to modify the cell doors in a number of units with a larger vision panel to facilitate deputy observation of inmates on suicide watch status. Four cells in Unit 3 North and six cells in Unit 3 South have been converted for this purpose. The cells are inside the cellblock and are an extended distance from where the deputy is posted, approximately 40 and 60 feet. The deputy is also behind a security barrier and has limited capability to listen to the inmate in the cell (Unit 3 North has no audio capability, however in Unit 3 South the deputy can listen to the activities in the cells). Furthermore, the deputy has other duties and responsibilities in addition to monitoring the potentially suicidal inmates. This approach to monitoring potentially suicidal inmates is not consistent with best practices. Most jails manage this function by posting a deputy in close proximity to the suicidal inmate, with few distractions that would impede the deputy s ability to provide sight and sound monitoring of the inmate s behavior. This approach is not possible in the current housing units designated for housing inmates with mental health issues. Based on our experience, the Jail System s current supervision practices do not allow deputies to most effectively monitor potentially suicidal inmates. This creates substantial risk for the County. We believe that an alternative to the current practice of monitoring suicidal inmates/detainees should be immediately explored. RECOMMENDATION: Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close supervision due to the threat of suicide. We recommend utilization of Unit 3 South F, which is a small linear housing unit where a deputy has the capability of directly observing inmates through their cell doors as well as on a video monitor, as the cells are equipped with cameras. Inmate Escort All inmate movement in the Jail System occurs under deputy escort, typically unrestrained unless the inmate is considered a threat to security and safety. This includes movement to medical appointments, visitation, recreation, etc. By policy, all movement from the Main Jail to the New Jail takes place with the inmates held in restraints. Restraints include a waist chain with handcuffs in front connected to the chain. When multiple inmates are transported within the jails, a gang chain that connects the inmates to one another is typically applied. Inmates considered assaultive or particularly dangerous are transported in full restraints, including leg irons. 33

37 Transportation outside of the jails includes a waist chain with handcuffs in front. Leg irons are applied to inmates who are leaving the jails perimeter. Groups of inmates are chained together utilizing a gang chain. Transportation to court is accomplished in waist restraints with handcuffs attached to the chain in front. Leg irons are only applied if the inmate is a threat or when he/she enters the courtroom. The system used for making inmates available for court proceedings appeared efficient, secure, and wellmanaged. Escort and supervision of inmates to outside hospital appointments or inpatient admissions takes place with either one or two deputies assigned to the prisoner depending on the level of risk of the inmate. Violent offenders or inmates who have a history of being disruptive require two deputies to supervise the movement. Typically, if an inmate is transported out of the county, two deputies are assigned to provide security coverage. Corrections Bureau escort policies and practices generally conform to standard security procedures found in large jails throughout the United States. However, we did note multiple occasions of male and female inmates chained together for transport between the Main Jail and the New Jail. Best practices call for maximum separation of male and female jail inmates at all times. RECOMMENDATION: Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all be transported separately. Roll Call/Pre-Shift Briefing The current method of passing information from shift to shift takes place on post between the deputy being relieved and the deputy coming on duty. Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 4 Inmate Housing, Policy C , Briefing, requires each corrections deputy to review the cluster log in their respective assignments at the beginning of each tour of duty. The policy further requires that staff review the bulletin board in staff dining and also check their mail at least once per day for new orders and information. Beyond these requirements, there is no formal method by which a supervisor can easily convey information to deputies on their shift. In many large jail systems, deputies attend a roll call or briefing that provides an opportunity to receive information about jail activity, briefings on any incidents that have occurred on the previous shift, and training/guidance from superiors. This process may take place over a minute timeframe. An effective pre-shift briefing accomplishes two primary functions: communication of critical information and an opportunity for teambuilding. A number of correctional organizations have done away with the roll call/pre-shift briefing due to the cost of compensating staff for attending these meetings. At one time attendance was voluntary, but under the Fair Labor Standards Act, attendance at these meetings must be compensated. Therefore, due to budget limitations and cutbacks, many correctional organizations have ended the practice. This trend has led to alternative approaches to address the need for ongoing communication between shifts. For example, many Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities have replaced pre-shift briefings with a 34

38 supervisor s conference call, where staff call a number at a particular time from their post and are briefed by the supervisor. This takes place during the tour of duty, and there is no additional expense involved. Other jurisdictions use a centrally located video monitor on which staff can view information posted by their superiors as they are processed into the facility on the way to their post. Some systems have installed a pass-on log on an accessible computer, where vital information is posted and staff reviews the computerized log when they arrive for duty. These and other similar initiatives are costeffective alternatives to roll call briefings, increasing communication and ensuring that staff receives appropriate briefings regarding facility activity and information. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost-effective means to provide preshift briefing information through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols. The current methodology to brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a daily basis regarding policy/procedure issues and operational matters. Training Corrections Bureau in-service training levels have gradually diminished over time. Formerly, a training deputy was assigned to organize training, develop lesson plans, maintain records and deliver training to staff at the jails. At the present time, the former training deputy works a regular post in the facility and is called upon from time to time to conduct training sessions. The deputy estimated that he provides training services one day per month. Training requirements mandated by the County include weapons requalification for 8 hours per year and 8 hours of defensive tactics each year, for a total of 16 hours of training that occurs off post. In addition, officials have developed online training covering the following topics: Prison Rape Elimination Act Blood-borne pathogens Safety Suicide prevention and risk assessment Employees log onto a computer to complete these training programs. However, there is no pre- or posttest on the material covered in the session, nor is there any method to prove that the employee successfully participated in the program. There are plans to increase training going forward, but the lack of dedicated staff responsible for ensuring that deputies receive mandated training will continue to impair efforts to improve training. The near-universal standard for correctional officer training is 40 hours annually per officer, with staff in special assignments receiving somewhat more. Civilian personnel typically receive 20 hours annually. The American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities recommends that after their first year of service employees should receive 40 hours of in-service training annually, covering at a minimum a standardized curriculum that includes the following topics: 35

39 Standards of conduct/ethics Security/safety/fire/medical/emergency procedures Supervision of offenders including training on sexual abuse and assault Use of force In a facility of this size, training should be managed by a minimum of one officer responsible for organizing the training, developing the curriculum, obtaining feedback from staff on training needs, developing lesson plans, maintaining records, recruiting subject matter experts to conduct training, and personally conducting training. In a facility of nearly 300 staff, this can t be accomplished by a single part-time training deputy. Staff development leads to better-trained staff and more qualified personnel completing required tasks. Training is one of the most effective risk management tools available to correctional administrators. Providing staff with the best available knowledge on management expectations and how to perform their duties has a direct correlation to operational performance, particularly in a correctional facility working environment where issues of security and safety are omnipresent. However, the creation of an adequate training program will create a need for additional staff or overtime, as it will take staff away from regular post assignments for the equivalent of one work week per year. The appointment of a training sergeant for the facility is an important first step in this process. In order to reach the recognized best practice standard of 40 hours of annual training, each officer would require 24 additional hours of training. Assuming a roster of 274 security staff (243 corrections deputies, 19 sergeants, and 12 lieutenants), this equates to 6,576 additional hours of training. Based on the overtime management model presented earlier in this report, the most cost-effective approach to covering this additional staff requirement would be to hire two new deputies. These two deputies would avert 4,143 hours of overtime, leaving 2,433 hours to be covered by overtime. The projected cost of these new deputies and residual overtime is $264,842, as shown in Figure 18. In addition, creating a training sergeant position will cost a projected $100,177, assuming entry-level salary and current benefit levels. Accordingly, the total estimated cost of implementing a basic staff training program that meets contemporary professional standards is $365,019. Amount of OT hours on a shift OT hours averted by new hire (63%) Figure 18: Cost of Increasing Training to Meet 40-Hour Standard Number of new hires Max hours available from new deputies OT hours remaining for existing staff Annual cost of new deputies Cost of OT for existing staff Total cost with new staff Cost if all OT paid to existing staff Savings/(costs) from hiring new staff A*63% A-B C x $73,637 D x $48.32 E + F A x $48.32 H - G 6,576 4, ,680 2,433 $ 147,274 $ 117,568 $ 264,842 $ 317,752 $ 52,910 RECOMMENDATION: Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in-service training for all custody staff. In order to develop and support the training program, the Corrections Bureau 36

40 should re-establish the position of training officer. This individual will be responsible for organizing pre-service and in-service training for eligible employees, and ensure that a quality training program is in place and delivered. To cover the staff leave associated with an increase in training, two new deputies should be hired, and an additional overtime cost estimated at $117,568 will be incurred. In addition, a training sergeant position should be created to develop and manage the training program. The total cost of the increased in training requirements is estimated at $365,019. This is an area of significant operational need. Command Structure Within the County Sheriff s Office, the chief administrative officer for the Jail System is the Corrections Bureau Chief of Corrections. Based on a March 17, 2014 interim organizational chart, jail operations are managed by two captains that report to the chief. One captain is responsible for the Main Jail, as well as supervising office assistants and information services, the custody/security operation of the Main Jail, and the programs/courts lieutenant and his operations. The second captain is responsible for management of the New Jail and also supervises classification, programs, pretrial services, and training. Each captain supervises shift commander lieutenants that manage each shift at their respective jails. Sergeants report to their respective shift commanders. Line deputies report to sergeants. There are exceptions, as many of the career development staff deputies report directly to a lieutenant or one of the captains. This division of responsibility into separate command structures for each of the two facilities was instituted upon the opening of the New Jail in The primary rationale offered for the duplicate command structures is the distance between the two jails and the need to balance workload between the two captains. We acknowledge that the distance could be an issue under certain conditions; however, we question the overall benefit of the current organizational structure. Unity of command is an established principle and best practice in military/paramilitary organizations. This principle dictates that the command of like operational areas should be the responsibility of a single individual and not split between commanders of equal rank. Splitting command in this fashion can cause confusion and lead to fragmentation and duplication in the operation. In the case of the Corrections Bureau, two captains have divided responsibility for the operation of a moderately sized correctional facility with a capacity of 1,200 inmates. Command is split between the Main Jail and the New Jail, although they share many resources and have like functions and responsibilities. Our assessment indicates that a single captain should manage the operations of both facilities in order to simplify administration of the Jail System. The current dual command structure requires an unnecessary captain s position, complicates communication and implementation of management policy, and diminishes accountability. As discussed later in this report, we recommend assignment of the support functions currently managed by the captains to the administrative lieutenant post. This issue is addressed in more detail in the staffing recommendations described later in this report. Elimination of one captain s position will save an estimated $169.3 thousand annually. 37

41 RECOMMENDATION: Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the New Jail. This will allow for the elimination of one captain. Use of Technology The availability of technology to enhance operational efficiency varies throughout the Main Jail and the New Jail. A summary of key technology systems in use throughout both jail facilities follows: Control Center: The Control Center was constructed as part of the New Jail. There are two deputy posts assigned to the control room on day and swing shift, and one on night shift, with two monitoring stations that manage ingress and egress into and within the jails by controlling various access doors and grill work. Two security electronic panels are monitored on a continuing basis by the deputies, who lock and unlock doors triggered by a call button adjacent to the doors that the person requesting entry must depress. The deputy allows access through the doors, assuming the individuals have authorization to access the facility or units. In addition to the call button, the deputies can view the individual on one of two video cameras that are strategically placed to monitor each door. In addition to monitoring door controls, Control Center deputies monitor fire alarms, ambient alarms (these are alarms that monitor noise levels in the inmate living areas), radio transmissions, and 342 cameras that are strategically placed throughout the facilities. Cameras are not located in the cellblocks, but are capable of monitoring the officer station in the Main Jail. There is no camera coverage in the New Jail dormitories. Control Center deputies also monitor the duress alarms that each deputy carries. Perimeter: The building envelope serves as the perimeter of the facility, as there is no fencing or other security barriers. Secure access doors that lead to the outside are closely monitored by control center staff. Motion alarms are located on the roof, activating when there is movement. Cameras are also placed strategically on the roof for video monitoring by control room personnel. There are a few vulnerable areas, especially along the corridor that leads from the Main Jail to the New Jail, where a single detention-grade door separates the jails from the outside. All exterior doors are alarmed in the event they are penetrated. Inmates are typically restrained and escorted when traversing the corridor to ensure safety and security during the movement. Court video hearings: There are two active video court sessions in the County. In the morning, five days per week, Tacoma Municipal Court conducts arraignments; in the afternoon, Pierce County District Court conducts its arraignments. All County district court arraignments, which include domestic violence cases, are arraigned via the video court system. This capability has reduced transportation of prisoners, as the arraignments take place without having to assign deputies to transport the prisoners to the courts. Potential also exists to use video court for motion and plea hearing sessions in the district court. These sessions currently require inmates to be transported in person to meet with attorneys, prosecutors, and court officials regarding potential pleas. While this offers some opportunity for expanded use of video court, defense attorneys have argued that video sessions do not provide sufficient access to their clients to negotiate with the court on their behalf. 38

42 If logistical arrangements can be made to better facilitate attorney/client communication in the context of these plea sessions, use of video court sessions could be expanded to further reduce escorts of inmates from the jails to the courts. Finally, Pierce County Superior Court does not use video court for arraignments. Cases in superior court tend to be more complex and involve more serious offenses, leading to some reluctance on the part of the court to move away from traditional in-person court appearances by inmates. However, many large court systems in Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and California use video court for felony proceedings without problems. RECOMMENDATION: Enter into discussions with the courts regarding the potential expansion of video hearings for district court motion and plea hearing sessions and superior court arraignments. Officer/deputy safety: The County has invested in two-way radio communications, with each deputy assigned a radio for their own personal use. Additionally, body or duress alarms have been purchased and are available to enhance staff safety. When the alarm is triggered, the control center receives the alarm and staff deploys to respond. The investment in radios and duress alarms significantly enhances officer safety. The project team did note two areas of concern with regard to officer safety. Apparently, due to funding issues at the time of the New Jail s construction, cameras were not placed inside the inmate living areas in either the New Jail or Main Jail to monitor inmate behavior and activity. Cameras in these locations would allow Control Center personnel to observe staff when interacting with inmates at all times. In a facility with 342 cameras, the lack of any video observation inside inmate living areas or cellblocks is a serious defect. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a long-range plan to augment the current camera surveillance system with cameras installed in inmate housing areas. An additional area where technology would enhance officer safety is at the entrance to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station. The doors that lead into the cellblocks are keyed doors and the deputy enters each cellblock carrying the keys that open the cellblock door, as well as all of the adjacent cellblock doors within the cluster. This practice places officers at risk and is inconsistent with best practices. In the event the deputy is overtaken, the inmates would have access to the officer station, as well as the adjacent cellblocks. This is especially a concern in Unit 4 East, where there are vulnerable populations such as protective custody inmates, juveniles, and females. An ideal technology solution to this issue would establish electronic control of the doors leading into the cellblocks, eliminating the need for the deputy to carry the key leading into the cellblock from the officer s station. An alternative way to approach this issue would be to require a second officer assigned to all of these posts, allowing one officer to carry the key while the other one makes rounds inside the living unit. We estimate that this approach would require establishing 19 new posts, staffed by 34 deputies. The long-term operational cost of this approach would far exceed the 39

43 expense of a well-planned security electronics upgrade that would allow remote control of these doors. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security electronics to control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating the need to carry cellblock keys into the living units. Video visitation: This technology, while not currently in use in the County, should receive consideration for future use. Video visitation systems use simple kiosks installed in the housing unit, equipped with video screens and cameras, to provide scheduled access to web-based video visits with approved visitors. The systems increase the safety of the staff and inmates within the facility and can provide inmates with more frequent contact with their loved ones. Moreover, many systems, such as King County, have funded the installation of video visitation systems with inmate commissary revenues with no net cost to County general funds. Installation of a video visitation system would eliminate one visitation deputy post in the Main Jail and would reduce the workload of the remaining reception desk deputies. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of video visitation systems to supplant current visiting systems in the jails. In summary, the camera system and security electronics that were installed during the New Jail construction have positively impacted facility safety and security. Door controls throughout the jail are equipped with cameras and intercoms, thus allowing control center personnel to provide access under conditions where they have visibility of those attempting to enter. The purchase of radios and duress alarms provide for good communication capability and alerts for emergencies. The technological systems purchased and installed since 2003 have improved security and safety in the institution, but had limited impact on reducing costs at this time, with the exception of video court hearings. Video court arraignments have reduced court escorts and the need for additional deputies to transport inmates to court. The availability of video technology could prove to be helpful in improving surveillance of inmates threatening suicide, who need to be monitored closely. If Unit 3 South (F) is used for monitoring suicidal inmates, this can be accomplished with one officer assigned to the cellblock, which contains 12 cells, because the inmates in those cells can be observed on the video monitors as the cells are equipped with cameras. Security Policies The Pierce County Corrections Bureau Policy Manual is an extensive set of policy statements and procedures that guide the operation of the Jail System. The current manual appears to have been developed in 2003, revised in 2009, and subsequently reissued in Most recently, a number of revised policies were issued in January, The manual is organized with a chapter or topic area that contains policy and procedure for the numerous components that fall within the topic area. The manual addresses the following topics: 40

44 Title 1 Table of Contents: In addition to the table of contents, this title section includes the facility s mission statement. Title 2 Booking and Release: This title section includes chapters addressing the management of new detainees and those being released into the community. Chapter sections include procedures for conducting searches, handling property, lodging warrants, booking procedures, release procedures, jail-alternative programs, computation of release dates, and sex offender registration. Title 3 Classification: This title section includes chapters on the classification of inmates, inmate privileges, program eligibility, inmate workers, inmate discipline, grievance procedure, and disciplinary appeals. Title 4 Inmate Housing: This title section addresses inmate housing areas and describes the operation of the various inmate living units. This title section also contains the post orders to guide the deputies regarding their duties and responsibilities on the various job posts. It should be noted that a partial revision to this policy was issued in January 2013; however, it is not clear if the 2010 version of Title Four has been overridden by the issuance of the 2013 policy. The 2013 version does not include detailed descriptions of the housing units/living areas, nor does it include the deputy post orders, and post orders can t be located in other documents. Title 5 Reception, Public Access and Visiting: This title section outlines policy and procedures that guide the operation of the visitation program, procedures for entering the institution, placing money in inmate accounts, acceptance and release of items, and professional visitation by attorneys and other professional staff. Title 6 Security and Control: This title section outlines policy and procedure for the operation of the security program, which includes operation of Central Control, sallyport access, security electronics, searches, management of contraband, the inmate count system, locking systems, use of force and restraints, use of eye bolts, and protective gear. Title 7 Inmate Services: This title section outlines services provided to inmates, including food service, commissary, clothing, housekeeping, unit inspections, waste removal, and inmate correspondence. Title 8 Inmate Programs: This title section outlines procedures for inmate outdoor recreation, programs, and library services. Title 9 Fire Prevention, Fire Safety, and Evacuation Routes: This title section addresses fire prevention, fire safety, emergency evacuation, fire detection, firefighting equipment, and the sprinkler system. 41

45 Title 10 Inmate Escort: This title section addresses procedures for escorting and restraining inmates as they attend outside activities (court, funerals, etc.), for transport to hospital clinics, and outside hospital supervision. Title 11 Inmate Health Care Services: This title section addresses the provision of health care to inmates and procedures for administering medication, emergency medical services, hunger strikes, and infectious disease. Title 12 Emergency Procedures: This title section addresses emergency response and the management of emergencies in the Jail System. Procedures include emergency communications, hostage management, bomb threats, escapes, loss of power, natural disasters, control of firearms and weapons, fire and safety, management of riots, suicide procedures, alarm systems, and responding to duress alarms. Title 13 Exposure Protocol and Safety Procedures: This title section addresses exposure protocols and policy/procedures to address communicable disease outbreaks. Furthermore, the chapters include policy on barber tools, pest control, and maintenance. Policy manuals for the operation of jails are typically written to be consistent with nationally accepted standards for the operation of jails published by the American Correctional Association (ACA). The ACA standards that are relevant to the operation of jails are the Performance Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Fourth Edition. It is important to note that the Pierce County Corrections Bureau Policy Manual is an extremely thorough document, which includes detailed procedures for the operation of the facility. Although an audit of ACA standards compliance was not conducted with respect to County policies, generally speaking, the County s policies are consistent with best practices based on our experience. There are a few areas where modifications could be made to strengthen the policies and procedures and jail operations in general, as noted below: Post orders: The 2013 revision that was made to the housing policy, Title 4 Inmate Housing, does not include a detailed description of the housing units or deputy post orders. Post orders are documents that describe the duties and responsibilities of a deputy working a security post at the jails. They are critical elements of the security program that guide the performance of the staff assigned to supervise the inmate living units, as well as other critical security posts. The post orders also should include the hours of duty that the post is to be manned and should be based on the policies and procedures in effect for the facility. Each set of post orders should contain a chronological listing of activities to be performed on the post. Many jurisdictions provide additional detail in the post orders that includes excerpts from critical security policies that staff should familiarize themselves with on a regular basis. The post orders often include requirements for documentation by the officer/deputy working the post. The post orders should be available at the job location and a process should be in place to ensure that the deputy reviews the orders on a monthly basis and signs a document indicating that the procedure has been read and is understood. Post orders should be available at every post throughout the facility. 42

46 Tool control: In reviewing security policies and procedures, a policy statement and procedures for the control of tools in the institution could not be located. Tool control is an important element of a security program in a correctional facility or jail, and a program for tool control should be in place. A tool control policy should include procedures for inventorying and managing tools and maintenance supplies to ensure that no tool is left in the institution unaccounted for. Such systems typically include etching and inventorying of tools, as well as a continuous audit to ensure that tools are not in the possession of inmates, as tools can be an effective weapon and escape implement. We understand that County maintenance personnel maintain most facility tools outside the perimeter. Regardless, when they enter the institution there should be an inventory that security staff can check to ensure that the tools that enter the institution also leave the institution with the worker once the work is completed. Use of force: Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 6 Security and Control, Policy Statement 6.11, Force and Restraints, outlines procedures for the use of force and application of restraints. The elements of the policy do not include a process for after-action analysis of the use of force. Furthermore, the policy does not address the amount of force that can be used and under what circumstances force can be used. The policy also contains no provisions for counseling, training, and possibly discipline to ensure that situations where excessive force is used are addressed appropriately. Furthermore, use of force procedures should be detailed enough to give guidance to staff on how much force to use in certain situations. Many jurisdictions develop what is known as a continuum of force document, which gives staff guidance on when to use force and how much force is appropriate for the situation. Training: Training staff in security policies and procedures, including ongoing training in emergency procedures, is important to ensure the staff has the competencies required to perform their jobs. With the exception of firearms and defensive tactics, there is little training for staff that takes place on operational policies and procedures. As described earlier in this report, we strongly recommend that the County invest in training of Jail System staff in security policies and procedures. Policy should recognize the industry standard of 40 hours of mandatory annual training for deputies. Policy updates: The updating of policies and procedures should be a continuous process that is conducted annually. The policies we reviewed were mostly from 2010, with a few newer policies that were issued in We recommend that Jail System officials continue the process of reviewing and updating policies, with a goal of reviewing and updating each policy on an annual basis. RECOMMENDATION: Revise the policy manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post orders, tool control, use of force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update of the policy manual. Medical Contract Issues The County entered into a contract this year with Conmed for delivery of health care services at the jails. The contract, as described to the project team, is a cost-plus contract, in that the vendor is reimbursed 43

47 at a specific rate that includes actual costs for staff and services provided plus an amount to cover vendor overhead and profit. Cost-plus contracts are generally used in systems where costs are welldefined/fixed, with little opportunity for cost savings. The contract does include incentives for the vendor to reduce outside medical and hospital care. One of the primary benefits of the contract is that the county minimizes its risk for escalating health care costs by shifting responsibility for management of those risks to the vendor, who has very specific expertise in correctional health care management. The decision to contract for correctional health care is fundamentally a search for contractual accountability to consistently deliver an acceptable standard of health care at an acceptable price over a defined time period. The contracting solutions that provide the best value to clients are those that demonstrate long-term viability by balancing cost containment and risk/liability provisions with adequate provider payments. Counties can achieve health care cost containment through the use of contract terms that place the vendor at risk of losing money if costs exceed a certain level, or conversely provide an opportunity to increase profits if expenditures are reduced. Such terms are more likely to encourage cost-effective management of correctional health care services. Counties can also achieve savings by allowing vendors to leverage their knowledge and expertise in the delivery of correctional health care services through the design of alternative, cost-effective staffing patterns and service delivery models. In a competitive bidding environment the ability to achieve cost savings will result in lower bids to the County for services. Examples of potential future request for proposal (RFP)/contract changes that could more effectively contain costs include the following: In structuring the RFP, all vendors should be required to bid the same staffing plan, but then be allowed to propose alternative staffing patterns to meet required service levels. The current medical staffing pattern appears adequate, but vendors with extensive expertise in managing correctional health care services may have different approaches that could generate staff savings. Accordingly, the County should require a bid on current staffing patterns, but also request alternative staffing plans proposed by vendors tied to specific benchmarks of service. In terms of managing risk, there are certain costs for HIV, hepatitis C, and other treatments the County needs to take responsibility to pay outside of the vendor contract. These costs can be very unpredictable and can result in vendors building in a risk premium for these potential costs. RFPs that provide the most savings assign vendor risk to those areas that are relatively predictable and where vendor experience/expertise can yield savings. By carving out these types of exceptional costs from the contract, the County allocates risk for vendors away from unpredictable care events, and toward routine types of care that are more amenable to cost control management. The County shares in the risk and helps lower the cost of the contract by assuming responsibility for high-cost, unpredictable cases. Adjust the contract staff reimbursement process. Most contracts call for payment to the vendor on the basis that 100% of contract staff hours are provided each month. However, due to staff 44

48 vacancies, hiring lag, vacations, and other types of days off, vendors typically never provide 100% of contract hours, thus requiring an extensive reconciliation process every month. A simpler process would recognize these vacancies up front and reimburse vendors at a rate of 90% of contract hours. This process decreases upfront payments to vendors by contract term, instead of as a byproduct of a monthly reconciliation process, which currently imposes administrative burdens on both vendor and County staff. The end result would be reduced up-front payments by the County, and reduced overhead for both sides used to perform and manage the reconciliations and audit functions. The County has projected a savings of approximately $832,550 for 2014 and is projecting a savings of $1,296,800 in 2015 attributable to this contract. Overall, the approach the County has taken on health care privatization appears cost effective while meeting the health care requirements for the Pierce County Jail. Jail Governance Most local jail and detention facilities in the United States operate under the authority of, and are managed by, sheriffs offices. Parameters for the oversight of detention facilities typically are dictated by state statute, which define sheriff s office duties as including management of county detention facilities. Such statutes also generally include provisions by which a sheriff may relinquish responsibility for detention management to the county. Examples of local corrections departments managed under the direct authority of county executive or legislative agencies include King County, Washington; Santa Clara County, California; and Broward County, Florida. The project team has worked with four large local jails managed as county agencies (King County, Washington; Santa Clara County, California; San Juan County, New Mexico; and the New York City Department of Corrections), as well as a large number of jails managed directly by sheriffs. Based on our experience, we note the following distinctions in these different approaches to jail governance: Jails managed by a sheriff s office often serve as entry points into law enforcement. Many sheriffs departments offer promotional opportunities for jail staff who wish to enter law enforcement. This often provides an effective incentive for recruiting individuals to work in the jail. This can be a significant benefit to systems that have difficulty in recruiting and hiring jail staff. However, the Corrections Bureau has historically experienced little problem in filling vacancies. The level of staff compensation and benefits already provides significant recruiting inducements. As a result, the potential for career advancement into law enforcement probably provides little direct benefit for the Corrections Bureau. Jails also provide job assignment opportunities for senior police officers nearing the end of their careers, who may wish to move from law enforcement patrol to potentially less physically demanding work. The management of jails by sheriffs offices facilitates these types of career moves. 45

49 Administrative support of jail operations can be made more efficient in a sheriff s office. As standalone agencies, jail departments must maintain full administrative departments, including budget management, procurement, human resources, planning and other related functions. As part of a sheriff s office, these functions are centrally organized under the sheriff and then made available to support jail operations. As a result, managing jail systems as county agencies may somewhat increase administrative staffing levels and cost in total. Vesting the sheriff with responsibility for jail management provides an additional liability buffer for a county. Both legally and politically, many counties prefer that the sheriff maintain responsibility for jail issues. Jail administrators often prefer to be placed organizationally under sheriffs. They believe that law enforcement professionals have a better understanding of jail operational needs and issues, and that as a result, jails receive more attention and better funding than they would as county agencies. A sheriff advocates for resources for two basic county functions, law enforcement and detention. As a county agency, a jail must compete with all other local agencies for resources. Counties that have assumed responsibility for jail management have often done so in response to lawsuits or federal investigations related to jail conditions. In these cases, the sheriff is often viewed as mismanaging the jail, and the expectation is that county administration will improve jail performance. County administrators in systems with county governance over jails indicate greater awareness and knowledge of jail issues and view this as a significant advantage. Whether managed by the sheriff or not, jail operations is typically one of the largest components of county government staffing and spending. County administration of jail systems has at least the potential for providing more transparency and accountability in relating jail funding with a better understanding of operational challenges. In summary, there is no clear evidence that points to the superiority of either county or sheriff s administration of local jail systems. Instead, factors such as local politics, justice systems trends, local government administrative infrastructure, and level of jail management professionalism are probably as, if not more, significant contributors to effective performance than the body responsible for oversight of the local correctional system. Accordingly, establishing the optimal model for jail governance for a jurisdiction requires a thorough analysis of the unique circumstances present in the local environment, as well as an understanding of the specific challenges facing the Jail System. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this project. That said, we believe that an evaluation of the most effective approach for overseeing the County s Jail System should address the following key issues: Accountability: Does the system of oversight establish clear parameters and direction for jail management while holding administrators accountable for operations, policies, programs, and spending decisions? 46

50 Transparency: Are policy and operational issues clearly communicated to the public? Cost-effectiveness: What system provides the most effective oversight and control over spending and revenue-generating activities? Support: How can administrative and ancillary functions be provided in the most efficient and effective manner possible? Performance: What system provides the most effective support for achievement of jail operational and program objectives? In each area, the analysis should assess how the current system either facilitates or impairs achievement of objectives in these areas. This should be followed by an analysis of how a change in governance would affect these same issues. The goal of the analysis will be to identify how the current model of jail governance affects current system performance, both positive and negative. With this information, the analysis can then address how a change in governance could affect those issues, as well as any other ancillary benefits or negative impacts that could be produced by a change in governance. 47

51 Capacity Management The primary challenge of jail capacity management is to align the housing of the inmate population with available capacity based on risk profile, while maximizing the efficiency and the effectiveness of inmate supervision. This task requires an effective classification system tied to a facility capacity utilization plan. Classification In accordance with the Pierce County Corrections Bureau Policy Manual, Title 3 Classification, Chapter 3.01, Classifications of Inmates, the following classification levels have been established for use at the County s Jail System facilities: Level 1: High maximum Level 2: Close custody maximum Level 3: High medium Level 4: Medium Level 5: Medium pre-sentence Level 6: Minimum Level 7: Low minimum Level 8: Very low minimum The policy s objective is to ensure that fair and consistent guidelines are used in determining inmates housing assignments, and that these decisions are based on the assessed risk and needs of each inmate. In accordance with the Jail System s classification plan, inmates of the jails are assigned by the classification corrections deputy(s) or the jail classification committee to one of the following classification categories: Maximum security classification (levels 1 and 2): These inmates have been charged with extremely serious felony crimes, have holds or other pending court action concerning such types of crimes, display a need for maximum amount of supervision, or have displayed significant disciplinary problems. Inmates designated as maximum security will be allowed a limited amount of out-of-cell time and only then under a corrections deputy s supervision at all times. Maximum security inmates also will not be allowed to associate with the general inmate population. By policy, the existence of the following factors will result in an inmate being designated as high risk and limits his housing and program placements to levels 1 and 2 accordingly: Escape risks (from secure facility) Assaultive toward staff/other inmates Severe emotional or mental problems presenting security concerns Extremely violent crimes Continuous and severe disciplinary problems Those accused or convicted of crimes of high notoriety 48

52 Policy further states that any prisoner, pre-trial or sentenced, that is housed at the jails for a crime and designated by the courts as aggravated murder 1, two-strike sex offenders, or three-strike and/or death penalty candidates shall be designated classification level 1 or 2 only. All prisoners held for murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, murder or attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, or attempted murder first or second degree shall be designated classification level 1 or 2 only. High-risk inmates may also include those who have had their life threatened by other inmates within the facility or who have been identified as suicidal. High-risk inmates are not eligible for unit worker status. Level 1 and 2 inmates will not be housed in open dorm units. All of these policy considerations place significant limits on available housing options and eliminate the use of the New Jail dorms for a significant segment of the population. Medium security classification (levels 3, 4, and 5): Inmates in this classification level include those sentenced misdemeanants and felons who do not qualify for minimum security and who do not require a higher level of security. Inmates in the facility awaiting trial or sentencing and who do not require a higher level of security will be placed in medium security. Medium security inmates are treated as an escape risk, require a normal amount of staff supervision, are limited in their out-of-cell movement (requiring continuous supervision), are allowed to participate in most in-house programs, and are eligible for in-house inmate worker consideration. Policy requires that pre-sentence inmates, those awaiting conviction and sentencing, shall be designated as medium security, custody level 5. These inmates are temporarily assigned a medium security status and may be reclassified as minimum security upon sentencing. This policy significantly impairs the classification of relatively low-risk offenders to minimum security. Minimum security classification (levels 6, 7, and 8): Minimum security includes inmates with designated custody levels of 6, 7, or 8. Inmates assigned to a minimum security level (minimum, low minimum, very low) may be sentenced misdemeanants or selected sentenced felons, except those who have been convicted of assaultive felony crimes. By policy, inmates assigned minimum security status must have no holds or other pending court action against them, display a cooperative attitude toward the staff and the rules and regulations of the facility, and not be considered an escape risk. Inmates in minimum security status are eligible for inmate worker and work crew status and are also provided a maximum amount of out-of-cell recreation time. Northpointe Assessment Process In 2008, the Corrections Bureau began implementation of an objective classification instrument developed by Northpointe. The assessment process utilizes a decision tree that evaluates numerous common factors to determine a security level. The factors included in the decision tree are as follows: Current offense Prior assaultive offenses Prior assaultive felony convictions Escape history 49

53 Known behavior problems Three or more prior felonies Detainer/warrants Pre-sentence/post-sentence Family ties and employment The decision tree evaluates each of these factors in progression which leads to a designation of the security level. The use of this system has produced a classification mix of the current Jail System population summarized in Figure 19. Figure 19: Current Jail System Population by Classification Level Level Numbers % of Pop Figure 20 summarizes the corresponding breakdown of the population by custody level. Figure 20: Current Jail System Population by Custody Level Level Custody level Number % of Pop. 1 and 2 Maximum % 3, 4, 5 Medium % 6, 7, 8 Minimum % 9 Unclassified % It is unusual for a jail system of this size to use a nine-level classification instrument. The degree of complexity and the configuration of multiple small housing units make its use problematic for staff. There is little difference among the risk presented by offenders within the separate level of each of the major classification categories of maximum, medium, and minimum. The case reviews clearly indicate that levels 6, 7, and 8 can be compressed into a single level. A simpler three- or four-level system would be just as effective at assessing risk and would be simpler to administer. RECOMMENDATION: Compress the number of security classification levels from the present nine levels to a system that utilizes three or four levels. 50

54 We also note that the same assessment instruments are used for both males and females. It has been demonstrated in system after system that female offenders tend to be over-classified if assessed by a single instrument that has been validated based on a male population. Developing a customized assessment instrument for females will result in more female offenders classified as minimum security. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female offenders. In reviewing the distribution of the Jail System s population by custody levels, we would expect a higher percentage of minimum security inmates. Presently, inmates in levels 6, 7, and 8 total about 15% of the population. This represents the minimum security portion of the Jail System population. Most jail systems have a minimum security population level of at least 20%. This lower-than-expected proportion of the population in minimum security may be a result of the Jail System s policy requirement that all pre-sentence inmates be placed in medium security or higher classification levels. This is an unusual requirement, as most systems rely on objective risk assessment evaluations to determine inmate security levels. The rationale offered by classification staff at the jails is that potential lack of experience with pre-sentence inmates makes a presumption of medium security a prudent risk assessment. In order to obtain an understanding of how the classification and assessment process is functioning, we conducted a case review of the most recently completed classification decisions. We reviewed 60 cases and the key factors on each case recorded from inmates booked into the system on March 24-25, 2014 with the classification deputies. The results of this review include the following: Prior assault offenses: 14. None of the cases had prior escape history. Three or more prior felony cases: 5. Detainer or outstanding warrant: 6. Medium security (level 5) required due to pre-sentence status: 22; 18 of these would have been classified as minimum by classification staff. Only one case had a departure or override based on other than the mandatory factors noted. Offense categories included: Murder I: 1 DWI: 14 Drug-related charges: 11 Assaultive offenses: 10 Theft/burglary: 11 The resulting classification mix of these 60 cases is noted in Figure 21. Two cases were undetermined as to final classification. 51

55 Figure 21: Case Review Sample-Classification Profile Level Numbers % Two cases undetermined The snapshot showed 38% of cases reviewed would have been classified as minimum security absent the policy mandating all pre-sentence inmates receive a level 5, medium security classification. RECOMMENDATION: Remove the mandatory requirement that all pre-sentence inmates remain in medium security until sentenced. A review of the inmate s history and circumstances of the charges and arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre-sentence offenders classified as appropriate for minimum security housing. During our review of cases we also noted that discretionary overrides are not utilized to adjust classification outcomes. The classification deputies rely almost exclusively on the factual information related to the case and booking information and the result is that overrides based on professional assessment of special circumstances or professional judgment are seldom exercised. Most systems experience a normal override rate of 5-15% to address special conditions such as medical, mental health, protective custody, juvenile, etc. Our initial assessment is that the Northpointe decision tree is over-classifying the incoming population. More extensive review and a formal validation test of the decision tree must be completed to determine whether the indicators are valid. This is critically important to the housing plan decisions, as it is likely that the system could more fully utilize the vacant dormitory housing in the New Jail and de-activate the smaller pod units in the Main Jail. Chief Daniels has indicated a request to the National Institute of Corrections to fund a detailed analysis, and restructuring of the classification instrument is pending. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a formal revalidation and potential restructuring of the classification instrument to achieve a more normal distribution of the inmate population into minimum custody. 52

56 Inmate Housing In order to verify the actual available housing capacity of the Corrections Bureau, we conducted a survey of all housing areas contained in the Jail System. The data obtained was compared to other existing reports that had been previously issued by the County and the Sheriff s office. The capacity numbers in Figure 22 were identified during on-site visits to the facilities and review of the pods within each unit. The function and purpose of each of the units was determined through a combination of a review of existing documents and discussion with the Jail System staff during the course of the facility reviews. A spreadsheet was developed and the actual occupancy figures for each unit were recorded based on the actual unit counts as of April 4, Figure 22 summarizes both the maximum capacity of each pod within the units and an actual snapshot count of the pods as of the selected date of April 4, The table also describes the general purpose of the unit in terms of the type of inmate housed by gender, custody level, and special needs if applicable. The accounting of beds as reflected in the following indicates a maximum available capacity of 1,713 and an actual inmate count of 1,027 as of April 4, Figure 22: Corrections Bureau Housing Capacity Main Jail Custody level & special uses Gender Supervision Total capacity Operational capacity Count 4/4/14 3 East-A Medium PC Male/CPAP Indirect East-B Medium Male Indirect East-C Medium Male Indirect East-D Medium Male Indirect East-E Closed Male/CPAP Indirect East-F PC-Closed Male/PC Indirect 1-3 East-G PC-Closed Male/PC Indirect 1-3 East-H PC-Closed Male/PC Indirect 1 - Subtotal: South-A Maximum/MH suicide Male Indirect/seg South-B MHP/suicide Female Indirect/seg South-C Maximum Male Indirect/seg South-D Maximum/suicide Female Indirect/seg South-E Non-disciplinary seg. Male Indirect/seg South-F Maximum closed Male Indirect/seg Subtotal: West-A Maximum/suicide Male Indirect West-B MHP/suicide Male Indirect West-C Maximum Male Indirect Subtotal: North-A Medium/MHP Male Indirect

57 Main Jail Custody level & special uses Gender Supervision Total capacity Operational capacity Count 4/4/14 3 North-B Seg/crisis/MHP Male Indirect North-C Medium/MHP Male Indirect Subtotal: South-A Medium Male Indirect South-B Medium/medical Male Indirect South-C Medium Male Indirect Subtotal: West-A Medium Male Indirect West-B Medium Male Indirect West-C Inmate workers Male Indirect Subtotal: North-A Medium Male Indirect North-B Medium/medical/AWD Male Indirect North-C Medium Male Indirect Subtotal: T-A Closed Male Indirect T-B Closed Male Indirect T-C Closed Male Indirect T-D Closed Male Indirect T-E Closed Male Indirect T-F Closed Male Indirect Subtotal: East-A Medical/minimum overflow Female Indirect East-B Medium Male Indirect East-C Juveniles Male Indirect East-D Medium Male Indirect East-E Medium PC Male Indirect East-F Medium/minimum PC Male Indirect Subtotal: West-A Max/medium Female Indirect West-B Intake Female Indirect West-C Medium/MHP Female Indirect Subtotal: MAIN JAIL TOTAL:

58 Main Jail Custody level & special uses Gender Supervision Total capacity Operational capacity Count 4/4/14 2A Minimum/medium Females Direct B Intake/low tier lower bunk Males Direct C Medium Males Direct D Medium/keep separate Males Direct Subtotal: A Inmate workers Males Direct B Minimum/medium Males Direct C Closed Males Direct D Closed Males Direct Subtotal: A Closed Males Direct B Closed Males Direct C Closed Males Direct D Closed Males Direct Subtotal: 336 NEW JAIL TOTAL: 1, TOTAL SYSTEM CAPACITY: 1,803 1,207 1,027 Housing units in the Main Jail consist of a variety of housing configurations and include dormitories and cells. The units with cells also vary in that they have differences in security hardware (doors, locks, etc.) that limit the uses of the units for specific populations. This combined with the fact that many of the cell units are dry cells (no plumbing fixtures) further restricts the flexibility of the units in terms of their use. This is especially critical given that the Jail System holds females and males plus a select juvenile population and a large mental health population, along with a number of protective custody offenders. Sight and sound separation of these populations is difficult to maintain, especially in the units in which they are housed, such as Housing Unit 4 East. We noted that 4 East C houses juveniles in an open dorm with open cell bars on the same corridor with adult males who are also housed in open cell-bar dorms. This practice is not consistent with court rulings in a number of jurisdictions that juvenile offenders must be housed with sight and sound separation from adult offenders, and as a result creates risk for the County. Given the very low number of juveniles housed in the Jail System, from six to eight on average, we believe it should be feasible for the County to secure alternative housing for these juveniles, either in the County s juvenile detention center or in an appropriate contract detention facility. This would substantially mitigate a potential risk for the County and relieve a specific operational challenge in the Jail System. 55

59 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail System. Juveniles should be housed in the County s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract detention facility. Housing Unit 4 East A also houses female offenders in close proximity to male offenders. The design of the housing unit makes ongoing supervision virtually impossible. This configuration of populations is a potential violation of federal PREA standards and presents security issues for staff. In fact, the 172 females housed in the Jail at the time of our review were dispersed among seven different housing units. Consolidation of the female population to maximize separation from male offenders would improve security and facilitate potential compliance with PREA. However, it is difficult to determine the optimal location for this consolidation until a revalidation of the decision tree that is specifically designed for females is completed. It can be expected the classification levels will shift, and once completed, a location or locations for consolidation can be made. The New Jail possesses some of the same advantages and disadvantages of the housing plan of the Main Jail. It is a modern facility that has excellent supervision sight lines of the units. Each 84-bed unit consists of open dorms separated by fencing. All of the dorms are dry with common toilet and shower areas adjacent to the dorms. This configuration limits its usage to minimum and medium security inmates who can be safely managed in an open dormitory setting. The County has a high number of units designated for mental health and medical special needs inmates. Most of these beds are interspersed among general population housing and are based on classification and custody levels rather than special needs. For example, on the housing plan there are 12 separate units that are noted as holding inmates designated with mental health issues and/or who are noted as suicidal. There should be consolidation of most of these offenders into specialized units staffed with deputies and clinical staff trained to manage mental health offenders. Based on our reviews of case files and interviews with classification staff, there appears to be a tendency to increase the custody level of any offender who shows indications of mental health issues. As a result, the vast majority of the mental health population is housed in the higher security units of the Main Jail. These units do not facilitate interaction or communication with staff. Housing units in the New Jail would be very appropriate for a more treatment-oriented approach to management of the mental health population. King County has had substantial success in improving mental health treatment for offenders by using this approach. The recommended validation of the classification instrument can be expected to grade a larger proportion of this population as suitable for New Jail housing. Also recommended previously, Housing Unit 3 South F should be designated as the centralized housing unit for close supervision of inmates in suicide watch status. RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit with trained staff, pending revalidation of the Jail System s classification system. 56

60 Within the Main Jail, Housing Units 3 East and 4 East present the greatest challenge in terms of supervision and housing of the type of offenders presently in the Jail System. These units should be closed and the offenders relocated to empty beds in the existing jail, while also opening one of the closed units in the New Jail. This would close 119 beds that would be replaced by an 84-bed unit in the New Jail and the absorption of the remainder of the population in vacant beds throughout pods in the Main Jail. The action would eliminate one 24/7 deputy post. This would reduce corrections deputy staffing by five officers at an estimated savings of $489.3 thousand. RECOMMENDATION: Close Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail, and open one of the closed housing units in the New Jail. Excluding closed units, the Jail System had an operational capacity of 1,207 available beds and a population count of 1,027 inmates on the day of this review. This corresponds to a utilization level of 85%. About 76% of the 180 beds of vacant operational capacity were in housing designated for special needs populations, with the remainder scattered through general population housing units, as shown in Figure 23. This level of available capacity is generally high compared to most large jail systems, but is consistent with recommended best practices for the ideal amount of surplus capacity that should be maintained to manage classification issues and population peaks. Figure 23: Distribution of Available Capacity, April 4, 2014 Other 24% Female 17% Mental Health 11% Medical 7% Intake 13% Max 19% Seg 9% Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau The existing vacancy rates within the existing units are a result of a combination of issues. These include the design of the units, the limitations that are placed on some units due to the unit s design, security hardware (or lack of), the large percent of special needs offenders (including mental health), and the classification system that has a larger than normal spread of levels. As these factors are addressed, the population can be condensed into existing vacant beds and possibly result in unit closures. This final 57

61 decision will need to be deferred until some decision is made on possible restructuring of the classification levels. Capacity Overflow Units At times of high population levels, the Corrections Bureau opens closed housing units to alleviate population pressures. Typically used for this purpose are Housing Units 3C and 3D in the New Jail (medium/minimum security capacity of 84 beds each) and 3SF in the Main Jail (maximum security capacity of 12 beds). These units have no established posts and must be operated entirely with overtime. In the first quarter of 2014, these units were open for 48 days, creating 144 shifts of overtime. In order to evaluate the use of overflow housing, we examined system capacity utilization for the month of February, During that month, overflow units were opened for 13 out of the 28 days of the month, housing an ADP of 22 inmates. Because the use of Unit 3SF appears more related to inmate management/supervision needs as opposed to population pressures (there was significant available maximum security capacity on each of the four days Unit 3SF was open), we focused our analysis on the use of Overflow Unit 3D. We reviewed facility count sheets for each of the nine days in February that Unit 3SF was used. We identified each housing unit designated for male minimum/medium security inmates and compared the population count for those days with the capacity level established for each unit. This produced a measure for vacant minimum and medium security beds available on those specific days. Figure 24 shows the availability of male minimum/medium security capacity for each day in February that Unit 3D was used for overflow capacity. Figure 24: Overflow Housing Compared with Available Capacity Feb. 1 Feb. 2 Feb. 3 Feb. 4 Feb. 5 Feb. 25 Feb. 26 Feb. 27 Feb. 28 Unit 3D Count Vacant Med/Min Beds Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau 58

62 The analysis shows that the overflow population exceeded available capacity on only one day during the period reviewed. On that day, February 1, Unit 3D housed 41 inmates compared to an available male minimum/medium security capacity of 29 beds. For the rest of the month, available capacity exceeded the number of inmates in the overflow unit by an average of 24 beds, ranging from a low of 0 on February 2 to a maximum surplus of 38 beds on February 28. In interpreting this data, it is important to keep in mind that managing jail system populations becomes exponentially more difficult as population levels approach capacity limits. The continual movement of inmates into and out of the system, the need to take into account risk levels and security classifications, and the very limited options for housing inmates, make decisions on housing placement very difficult as population levels climb. Moreover, as discussed earlier in this report, efforts to fully utilize available capacity are hampered by the current classification system, which is excessively complex and prohibits the housing of pre-trial offenders in minimum security housing units. Without a more detailed analysis of the population assigned to the overflow unit, it is not possible to definitively conclude that these offenders could have been housed in available medium and minimum security capacity. However, the analysis does suggest that throughout the system, there were beds available that would have made opening the overflow unit unnecessary. The Corrections Bureau is unique in that an overflow housing option is available to managers. Most other jail systems do not have closed housing units that may be opened when the need arises. In these systems, management must typically use temporary beds or boats on dayroom floors for housing at times of peak population levels. This option, which is available to the Corrections Bureau and has been used in the past, is another alternative to the use of an overflow unit to accommodate temporary peaks in the Jail System population. Based on our experience with other jail systems, up to 6 temporary beds could be deployed in most of the medium security units of the Main Jail, and up to 10 temporary beds could be deployed in each of the housing units of the New Jail. Use of temporary beds in this manner is not ideal and does increase risk and security issues. However, it is manageable and is an accepted practice in jail systems throughout the United States. Other options available to most jail systems in managing crowding include alternative sanction programs for low-risk offenders. Programs such as electronic monitoring, day reporting, work release, and pre-trial probation supervision have been proven to be safe, cost-effective alternatives to jail for low-risk offenders. If the Corrections Bureau s classification system can be modified to more effectively identify these types of inmates, development of such programs could potentially lower the Jail System population to the point that reliance on overflow housing could be eliminated. This underscores the point that opening the overflow unit is not an automatic function of the Jail System population increasing. It is a management decision. Jail management made the decision that opening the overflow unit and incurring the additional overtime costs was a better option than the complexity and risk associated with attempting to fully utilize readily available capacity or of using temporary beds. 59

63 Staffing Analysis This section of the report summarizes findings and recommendations derived from our assessment of the staffing of corrections deputies, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains posts of the Jail System. There are two major parts to this section of the report, the first being a series of findings and recommendations regarding the staffing of security posts. The second section addresses the calculation of the relief factor to ensure proper coverage of the recommended security posts. We summarize our recommendations in a staffing spreadsheet that documents required posts, calculates relief for those posts, and produces a recommended staffing complement for the Jail System. Security Staffing Positions Staffing levels for uniformed staff members totaled 277 current funded positions as of March 24, As Figure 25 shows, the majority of those positions are deputy positions assigned to the various shifts. There are also a significant number of positions assigned to career development posts that are considered specialty assignments. Most of those positions are assigned to court escort, but there are a number of positions that perform administrative duties. It is important to note that the balancing of the day shift, swing shift, and night shift reflects the heavier workload during the shifts when inmates are awake and active. The effort made by the administrative lieutenant to ensure that each shift is properly balanced is noteworthy. Figure 25: Current Security Staffing Summary Day shift Swing shift Night shift Administration Career development Total Captains Lieutenants Sergeants Deputies Total Source: Pierce County Corrections Bureau These 277 staff, in addition to a limited number of civilians, fill 183 specific posts and job assignments established to support the daily operation of the correctional system. The primary categories for these posts are command (chief, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants), control/booking, Main Jail housing, New Jail housing, reception, classification, industries, court escort, and administration. Figure 26 identifies each of these posts, the associated shift the post is active, the work schedule, hours of coverage, and whether the post requires relief. 60

64 Post/Position Figure 26: Current Corrections Bureau Posts & Job Assignments M-F 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hour Shifts 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Shifts 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Frequency Hours/ Week Chief No Captains Captain-Main Jail No Captain-New Jail No Lieutenants Admin Lieutenant No Programs Lieutenant No PREA/Medical Lieutenant No Shift Lieutenant-Main Jail No Shift Lieutenant-New Jail No Relief Lieutenant No Sergeants Classification Sergeant No Courts/IT Sergeant No Courts Sergeant No Records/Release Sergeant No JIP Sergeant No Shift Sergeant-Main Jail Yes Booking Sergeant-New Jail Yes Housing Sergeant-New Jail Yes Corrections Deputies New Jail Control Room Yes Booking Yes Fingerprints/Photographs Yes Booking Escort Yes Release Yes Housing 2A (84-Bed Dorm) Yes 2B (84-Bed Dorm - Intake) Yes 2C (84-Bed Dorm) Yes 2D (2-42 Bed Dorms) Yes 3A (84-Bed Dorm) Yes 3B (84-Bed Dorm) Yes 3C (84-Bed Dorm) D (84-Bed Dorm) A (84-Bed Dorm) B (84-Bed Dorm) Relief 61

65 Post/Position M-F 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hour Shifts 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Shifts 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Frequency Hours/ Week 4C (84-Bed Dorm) D (84-Bed Dorm) nd Floor Escort Yes 3rd Floor Escort Yes 4th Floor Escort Main Jail Clinic Security Officer Yes Clinic Security Officer Yes Escort Officer, 3rd Floor Yes Escort Officer 4th Floor Yes Housing 3 South (8 Units / 60 Beds) Yes 3 East (8 Units / 65 Beds) Yes 3 West (4 Units / 90 Beds) Yes 3 North (5 Units / 80 Beds) Yes 4 East (6 Units / 54 Beds) Yes 4 South (4 Units / 90 Beds) Yes 4 West (3 Units / 90 Beds) Yes 4 North (3 Units / 90 Beds) Yes 4-T (6 Units / 77 Beds) West (4 Units / Female Intake) Yes Reception Reception - New Jail Yes Reception-Main Jail Yes Visitation-Main Jail Yes Visitation-Main Jail Yes Classification Classification Deputy Yes Classification Deputy Yes Industries Prisoner Work Coordinator No Supply Deputy No Work Crew Deputy No General Maintenance No Court Escort Court Escort Deputy Yes Medical Transport Deputy Yes Low Voltage Deputy No Administration Relief 62

66 Post/Position M-F 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hour Shifts 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Shifts 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Frequency Hours/ Week Public Disclosure Deputy No Background/Recruiting Deputy No Safety Deputy No Civilians Office Assistants 5.5 Pre-Trial Screener No Pre-Trial Screener No Corrections Tech (Laundry) Yes Corrections Tech (Laundry) Yes Corrections Tech (Laundry) Yes Medical Director No Detective Sergeant No Mental Health Manager No Budget Manager No Mental Health Evaluator No Deputy Comptroller Spec No Accounting Assistant No Relief The project team conducted a task analysis of the job duties and workload associated with each post. The results of this review follow: Captains As noted previously, there are two captains assigned as operations captains, one for the Main Jail and one for the New Jail. Although the facilities are connected, they are managed as independent units. Each facility has its own captain, with a cadre of shift commanders assigned to each building. Staffing rosters reflect staffing for the unit only, and they are not combined with the adjacent facility. This arrangement results in policies and practices being developed for each section of the jails by one of two captains, based on their individual preferences. In the interests of unity of command, improved communication, and operational consistency, the facility requires only one operations captain. RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate one operations captain post, and make the remaining post the operations captain for the entire Jail System. The new administrative lieutenant (PREA/medical) post can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other support units within the organization, reporting to the operations captain. We also noted that captains are represented by a union and have their own collective bargaining agreement. This is somewhat unique in our experience. In most jail systems, senior jail administrators such as captains are considered a key part of management and are treated as managers. The need to 63

67 collectively bargain and establish fixed work rules for senior managers has the potential, at the very least, to make administration of the Jail System more complex and to make it more difficult to hold senior managers accountable. Lieutenants Consistent with unifying the command structure, the practice of having two lieutenant shift commanders, one at each facility, is not necessary. A single shift commander can be responsible for both facilities and have a sufficient number of subordinate sergeants deployed to provide close supervision to the living and administrative areas. This will eliminate three posts that require relief, which corresponds to four lieutenants. Consolidating operational responsibility in a single shift lieutenant will increase that post s responsibilities. To provide adequate support to the shift commander, we propose creating an additional sergeant post as described later in this report. No changes are necessary relative to the administrative, medical/prea, and programs lieutenant posts. All serve critical functions. RECOMMENDATION: Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail and the New Jail, consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and should be filled on a 24/7 basis. This will result in the elimination of one 24/7 lieutenant post. Sergeants The current deployment of sergeants includes a shift sergeant post in the Main Jail that supervises the deputies on the housing units. In the New Jail, a booking sergeant supervises the commitment and release process. Also in the New Jail, a housing sergeant supervises the deputies working the direct supervision units (at the present time, 6 of the 12 housing units in the New Jail are occupied, thus requiring only one sergeant to supervise those units). There are currently 15 sergeant positions allocated to cover these nine posts (three posts on each shift), which all require seven day per week coverage. Sergeants assigned to administrative duties include the classification sergeant, courts/it sergeant, the courts sergeant, the records/release sergeant, and the jail industries sergeant. All work the administrative shift, five days per week for 40 hours, with no relief. Each of these posts oversees important jail functions. However, the courts/it sergeant performs mostly administrative duties related to IT. He spends limited time addressing his court responsibilities. There is no reason why information technology support should be assigned to a sergeant. The existing sergeant and lieutenant assigned to the Court Escort Unit can continue to manage that unit effectively without the part-time sergeant, who rarely works in the unit handling court-related matters. The position should be converted to an administrative civilian title. RECOMMENDATION: Convert the courts/it sergeant post to a civilian position with information technology experience and qualifications. 64

68 Consistent with the creation of a unified command structure with one shift commander, an additional sergeant post (shift/roster sergeant) is needed to support the shift commander, serve as second in command, and to manage personnel deployment. This post will also be available to respond to emergencies, as well as manage certain administrative duties such as drafting reports and procedures. The shift/roster sergeant will fill a critical role in managing how personnel are assigned, as well as personnel reassignments that occur during the course of a shift, when needs and workload changes. The presence of a shift sergeant will free up the shift lieutenant to conduct inspections and provide guidance to subordinate personnel. The current lieutenants focus much of their time and energy on personnel deployment, and this hinders their ability to supervise and inspect operations. RECOMMENDATION: Create a shift/roster sergeant post to provide support for shift commanders and manage staff deployment. Our analysis of Main Jail operations indicates a need for an additional sergeant to provide effective supervision of the housing units. The current unit sergeant for the Main Jail, supervises up to 18 deputies on a shift, as well as the activities of 10 housing units that contain the most disruptive and difficult inmates This particular sergeant post is responsible for reporting on incidents, making rounds of each housing cluster, observing high-risk inmates, conducting the disciplinary investigations, relieving the shift lieutenant for meal breaks, evaluating performance of employees, and responding to emergencies. A second unit sergeant post on the day and swing shifts, when facility activity is at its height, is necessary given this level of work and its critical nature. The additional posts will enhance the quality of staff supervision and security in the Main Jail. The resulting staffing ratio of one sergeant per nine deputies on days and evening shifts is consistent with best practices. RECOMMENDATION: Create a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing shifts, seven days per week, with relief. The single unit sergeant post assigned to the New Jail is sufficient given the current level of capacity utilization in that facility. An additional unit sergeant post would only be required upon the opening of all of the remaining housing units in the New Jail. Correctional Deputies Correctional deputies are deployed throughout the Jail System to provide for the safety and security of the inmate population, staff, and the public. Of the 243 deputies on the roster at the time of this review, 187 work operational posts, performing duties such as housing unit supervision, monitoring security systems in the control center, booking and processing commitments and releases, supervising inmates in off-site hospitals, and providing security and supervision to common and service areas. There is also a large contingent of 56 deputies who are on career development assignments, such as court escort, reception/visitation, jail industries, supply, maintenance, medical transport, public disclosure, and safety. Following is our assessment of staffing requirements in each operational area: 65

69 Housing unit supervision: Housing deployment practices are provided using two different methods of inmate supervision. In the Main Jail, housing units are designed for indirect supervision. Deputies observe inmates through security glazing from their security posts, which are centrally located in a secure area. In order to make contact with the inmates, the deputy must proceed through a locked door into the housing unit. Deputies make periodic rounds and wellness checks of inmates on a schedule described in post orders. Housing unit deputies are supported by floor escort deputies, who assist the housing unit deputies when they make rounds, or if they need to respond to an inmate disturbance of some sort. Floor escort deputies also provide relief for housing unit deputies for their lunch periods and rest breaks (each deputy, per the union contract, receives a paid 30-minute lunch period and two 15-minute breaks during their eight-hour tour of duty). In the indirect supervision Main Jail housing units, staffing varies depending upon the population housed in the specific unit. Units that house a more difficult inmate population have two deputies deployed on the day shift and swing shift, with one deputy on the night shift. These units include: Unit 3 South: 60-bed unit housing maximum-security males, special management females, and potential suicide risks Unit 3 West: 90-bed unit housing maximum security inmates Unit 3 North: 80-bed unit housing medium security inmates, suicide risks, and inmates with significant mental health issues Unit 5 West: 90-bed unit housing females of various classifications The remaining units in the Main Jail have one deputy per shift assigned to supervise the living areas. These units are either smaller or house inmates that are of lesser security risk based on their classification. We identified few issues with regard to housing unit staffing in the Main Jail, with one exception. Unit 3 South is a particularly busy unit that houses maximum security inmates, special housing females, and inmates in need of close mental health observation. There is an unmanned control room in the common area outside of the cellblocks, which at times is manned by a deputy on lightduty assignment. This is not an established, funded post. However, our observations of this area indicated that the workload is high, and the inmate population needs to be closely monitored. This post should be established and filled on a permanent basis. RECOMMENDATION: Create a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7 coverage to provide improved supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit. As noted earlier in our assessment of current issues with the supervision of inmates on suicide watch, Unit 3 South F offers a much better environment for effective supervision given the layout and the presence of cameras in the cells. Designating this unit for housing inmates on suicide watch will require establishing one housing unit post. 66

70 RECOMMENDATION: Create a housing unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized supervision on inmates on suicide watch status. Inmate housing in the New Jail is managed in a direct supervision approach, with 84-bed open dormitories that currently house medium and minimum custody inmates. The housing units are open and have good sight lines into the inmate living areas. Unit recreation is only allowed for half of the unit, or 42 inmates at any one time. The remaining inmates are locked in their dormitories until it is their time to recreate. The unit bathrooms are somewhat isolated and difficult to view from the deputy station; however, management has placed mirrors so that the deputy can have some visibility of that area to enhance supervision. With the exception of Unit 2B, staffing in all New Jail housing units is one deputy 24/7. Unit 2B is the Jail System s intake unit and houses all newly arrived inmates. Two deputies are assigned to this unit on a 24/7 basis. As described earlier in this report, we recommend closing Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail and opening an additional housing unit in the New Jail to better manage this population. This action would eliminate two 24/7 housing units posts in the Main Jail and add one 24/7 housing unit post in the New Jail. The net impact would be a reduction of 5.4 FTEs, with a net savings of $538.3 thousand. Court/medical escort: The 25 deputies assigned to court escort both transport inmates to County courtrooms and supervise them during their proceedings. The unit averages 37,000 transports per year. There are 22 superior court judges, 4 Tacoma municipal judges, and 6 district court judges that receive inmates from the Jail System. The superior court arraignment session (court 260/270) requires five deputies to supervise operations, which includes a large holding area that contains seven multiple occupancy holding cells. Deputies are also assigned to the following courts and assignments that require inmate escorts: Tacoma Municipal Court: Two deputies each morning Outside medical appointments: One deputy as needed 250 Court: Three deputies that also supervise two multiple occupancy holding cells District and video court: Two deputies Drug court: Two deputies Trials: as many as 11 deputies assigned as needed throughout the court building In addition, one deputy is assigned to dispatch, receives calls during the day, and redeploys personnel as needed. The sergeant and lieutenant provide supervision and routinely make visits to the courts to supervise and troubleshoot operations. Based on our experience with court escort operations in other jail systems, the number of deputies assigned to this function is appropriate given the volume of work, scope of authority, and variety of tasks for which staff are responsible. As discussed previously, the best opportunity to reduce the number of deputies assigned to this function would be to expand the use of video court for superior court arraignments and for district court plea agreements. 67

71 Career development deputies: We reviewed all of the career development posts, which included posts in areas such as classification, reception, industries, and safety, as well as posts already addressed in this report, such as court escort. This section of the report addresses the following career development posts: Background/recruiting deputy Clinic security deputy Public disclosure deputy Work crew deputy Supply deputy Safety deputy Release deputies (11) Reception deputies (7) Prisoner worker coordinator Medical transport deputy General maintenance deputy Low voltage deputy Classification deputies (5) Most of these posts require specialized skills and play an important role in the operation of the Jail System; however, we noted several posts that do not appear to require correctional security training or experience. The low voltage deputy and the general maintenance deputy do not necessarily supervise inmates, but instead perform maintenance functions throughout the institution. The supply deputy handles ordering and issues supplies to the housing units. The public disclosure deputy performs administrative work maintaining records. These functions, while important, do not require the skills or training of a corrections deputy. The County should hire qualified civilian staff to perform these functions and utilize the sworn deputy staff for security and inmate supervision functions. This would result in better use of correctional deputies and allow these support functions to be performed by less expensive staff. Including the conversion of the court/it sergeant position to an appropriate civilian title, as recommended earlier in this report, changing these posts to civilian assignments would save the County an estimated $182,801. Figure 27 summarizes the savings realized from this recommendation. 68

72 Figure 27: Civilian Conversion Savings Post Title Annual cost Target title Projected annual cost Savings Courts/IT sergeant Correctional sergeant $ 121,727 Computer systems business analyst I $ 75,891 $ 45,835 Low voltage Corrections deputy $ 97,862 Facilities maintenance technician $ 60,833 $ 37,029 General maintenance Corrections deputy $ 97,862 Facilities maintenance technician $ 60,833 $ 37,029 Supply Corrections deputy $ 97,862 Facilities supplies specialist $ 61,825 $ 36,037 Public disclosure Corrections deputy $ 97,862 Administrative assistant $ 70,992 $ 26,870 Total $ 415,314 $ 259,383 $ 182,801 RECOMMENDATION: Convert the low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related experience and qualifications. Transports for Outside Health Care Services: In 2013 there were 866 documented transports of inmates to outside health care services. This number includes 125 referrals to the emergency room that did not result in the inmate being admitted, 40 referrals to the emergency room where the inmate was admitted to the hospital, 672 referrals to specialists (non-surgical), and 29 surgical referrals to specialists. The number of transports is largely a function of the number of inmates housed at the jails. To the extent that the ADP is projected to decline slightly in 2014, the number of these trips should decline as well. The new medical contract should have no impact on the number of trips for outside care. Transports to the emergency room can happen at any time of the day, any day of the week. With 165 emergency room transports in 2013, the average number of trips was 3.2 per week, or about once every other day. Specialist referrals are typically scheduled in advance during business hours Monday through Friday. There were 701 inmate transports for specialist services in This is an average of 13.5 transports each week, or about 2.7 transports each weekday. In addition, staff transported 324 inmates to the Western State Hospital (WSH) for mental health treatment. This was an average of 6.2 transports to WSH each week, or about 1.2 transports each weekday. Figure 28 summarizes these transports. Figure 28: 2013 Inmate Transports for Outside Health Care Services 2013 Total Avg./week Avg./day Total emergency room (ER) referrals ER referral (non-admitted) ER referral (admitted)

73 2013 Total Avg./week Avg./day Total specialist referrals Specialist referral (non-surgical) Specialist referral (surgical) Mental Health Transport to WSH Total outside services/wsh 1, The Corrections Bureau has one medical transport deputy post to manage these escorts. When this deputy is unable to work due to vacation or sickness, the position must be covered with overtime staff or reassigned deputies from the court escort detail. Through the first five months of 2014, this post required 25.8 hours of overtime support. Hospital supervision: Inmates admitted to the hospital for medical care must be supervised 24/7 by correctional deputies. For the period October 1, 2013 to May 25, 2014, this duty had required 2,669.7 hours of overtime. This level of activity annualizes to a projected 4,083.1 hours of overtime for hospital supervision duty, or 1,361 hours overtime per shift. As shown earlier in our analysis of overtime, roughly 2,500 hours of overtime per shift needs to be incurred to make hiring additional staff cost effective. Accordingly, the most efficient way to staff this function is with overtime. Light-duty assignments: Jail System security staff of all ranks may be subject to injury on duty or have an accident off the job. Because of the nature of the work, there are certain job requirements that have to be met, and the staff member has to be physically able to perform the tasks and job assignments associated with the position. When staff are injured, they can be off duty receiving compensation under a workers compensation program or discharge benefit leave. Their absence from duty reduces the number of available personnel to perform the job and is reflected in the relief factor. The County offers staff with health issues or physical impairments the ability to return to work on what is known as a light-duty assignment. These duties typically have limited or no direct contact with inmates. For example, staff restricted to light duty may be assigned to the central control post, where their duties are not physically demanding and they have no contact with inmates. At the time of this review, the Corrections Bureau had 17 deputies on light-duty status. Because the opportunities for light duty in regularly assigned posts are limited, management often assigns these deputies to unofficial posts that are not funded in the budget and that do not appear on the roster. One of these posts is the 3 South control, which is currently not a funded post. Other posts that staff can be assigned to are supply assistant, administration/mail, and trustee coordinator. The reported practice of the Corrections Bureau is to offer these light-duty 70

74 assignments to staff for up to one year. At the end of the year they are required to either return to regular duty or terminate employment. This is a very long period of time to offer light-duty assignments, which contributes to the relatively large number of staff in this status. Restricting the amount of time on light duty to six months is consistent with the practice of most jail systems and would significantly reduce the number of deputies who must receive light-duty assignments. Our prior recommendation to staff the 3 South control post 24/7 will also create six additional light-duty posts. These two actions should balance the number of staff on light duty with available, funded posts. RECOMMENDATION: Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light duty post to six months, thereby reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable level. Shift Relief Factor The shift relief factor is critical in determining staffing of Jail System operations, which are typically 24/7 functions. The shift relief factor is defined as the number of full-time equivalent positions needed to fill a relief post (one that is covered on a continual basis) for a single shift. The shift relief factor is multiplied by the number of staff assigned to a specific post to determine the number of staff necessary to provide for that post. 1 In determining the shift relief factor, the number of hours a post must be filled is calculated. In the case of a seven-day, eight-hour post, a single employee typically works a five-day week, leaving two days, known as regular days off (RDO), that the employees are not present. Additionally, the typical employee is absent for other reasons, such as discharging sick leave, vacation, military leave, family medical leave, leave without pay, training, and workers compensation. Additionally, in the correctional environment, staff are typically absent to attend training programs as well. The total amount of hours unavailable for assignment is further deducted from the employee s availability for work. Examples of this calculation for 24/7 posts are as follows: The number of hours the post is required to be filled in a year is 8,760 hours (calculated by multiplying 24 hours per day times 365 days per year). The number of hours an employee is available to work begins with 2,086 hours of availability (40 hours per week X weeks equals 2,085.6). Staff availability is reduced by the number of hours the individual is not available to work for the reasons cited above. This results in a calculation of net annual work hours (NAWH), which is the number of hours staff are employed to work, minus the average number of hours that person is unavailable. It is critical when making the calculation of net annual work hours that all the time is accounted for in the calculations. 1 Camille Camp, George Camp, Hardyman, and May, Prison Staffing Analysis, A Training Manual, National Institute of Corrections, December

75 With calculation of NAWH, the relief factor can be derived by dividing the number of hours per year that a post must be staffed by the number of hours one deputy is available to work in a year. Staffing requirements then are determined by multiplying each post by the required relief factor. The Corrections Bureau uses a relief factor of 1.74 for an 8-hour post, seven days per week. Staffing the one post on a 24/7 basis should require 5.22 deputies (1.74 x three [3] shifts). We recalculated the relief factor based on the most recent three years of leave data available from the County. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed training remains at the historical level of 16 hours annually per deputy. Figure 29 shows a summary of the calculation of NAWH for lieutenants, sergeants, and deputies. Figure 29: Net Annual Work Hour Calculation Job classification Lieutenant Sergeant Corrections deputy Total hours contracted per employee per year* 2, , , Sick and family leave Bereavement time Vacation time Holiday/furlough Comp time Military leave Jury duty time Training time Catastrophic leave L&I Suspension/LWOP/ADLV Other Total hours off per employee per year Net annual work hours 1, , , *40 hours per week times weeks in a year The data used in this analysis point to several issues for Corrections Bureau management: Deputies use on average over 14 sick/family leave days per year. This is one of the highest levels of sick time use we have seen. The level of suspension time is also extraordinarily high. The level of military leave for deputies is also high. While this may be a function of the large military presence in the County, the fact that deputy military leave is so much higher than that of sergeants or lieutenants seems unusual. The level of training hours is far below professional standards. A normal level of training would be 40 hours on average per officer. 72

76 This number of anomalies in the data may suggest underlying issues with the validity of the information submitted for use in this analysis. An audit of the accuracy of the staff leave data summarized here is beyond the scope of this project. However, because this data is essential for accurate calculation of Corrections Bureau staffing requirements, it is in the County s interest to validate the accuracy and reliability of this data. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to document its accuracy. If accurate, the leave data reported for staff should be regularly monitored to detect patterns and trends in employee leave use. The relief factor should be updated annually to ensure that it reflects changes in these trends. Applying this level of staff availability to the hours required for 24/7 posts results in the relief factors summarized in Figure 30. Figure 30: Relief Factor Calculation Lieutenant Sergeant Corrections deputy Hours per year 8, , ,760.0 Hours per year divided by NAWH Shift relief factor This represents a 5.2% increase over the relief factor currently used by the Corrections Bureau. (For purposes of budgeting, the effective relief factor is lower due to unpaid leave.) Applying this more accurate relief factor to the staffing roster recommended in this report will increase staffing requirements by an estimated eight positions over the same recommended roster using the current relief factor. If appropriately managed, these additional positions should avert 12,984 hours of overtime. Based on the overtime management model described earlier in this report, summarized in Figure 31, this increase in relief staff will reduce overtime spending by an estimated $627.4 thousand, or 23% from current projected spending levels. The projected cost of the additional relief staff is $605.6 thousand, resulting in a net savings of $21.8 thousand. Figure 31: Fiscal Impact of Adjusting Relief Factor OT hours averted by new hire # of New hires OT hours remaining for existing staff Annual cost of new deputies Cost of OT for existing staff Total cost with new staff Cost if all OT Savings/(costs) paid to from hiring new existing staff staff 12, ,626 $ 605,608 $ 368,465 $ 974,073 $ 995,852 $ 21,779 As described earlier, however, these savings are contingent upon the appropriate deployment and assignment of relief staff in a targeted manner to address staff shortfalls related to overtime. This 73

77 requires a significant upgrade in the overtime tracking and management capabilities of the Corrections Bureau. As such, the savings identified above should be viewed realistically as the potential benefits that can be realized from adjusting the number of relief staff to appropriate levels. RECOMMENDATION: Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff required to provide recommended post coverage without undue reliance upon overtime. This will result in an increase in the relief factor from 1.74 for a 24/7 corrections deputy post to 1.80, and an increase in staffing of eight corrections deputies. Staffing Recommendations In summary, our assessment proposes the following modifications to the current post staffing plan for the Corrections Bureau: Eliminate one of the two captain posts. Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post. Eliminate two 24/7 deputy posts in Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail. Add a shift/roster sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for shift commanders and manage staff deployment. Add a second unit sergeant for the Main Jail on the day and swing shifts, seven days per week to better manage existing workload demands. Add a control unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with day and evening shift 24/7 coverage to provide improved supervision of the high-risk population housed in the unit. Add a housing unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized supervision of inmates on suicide watch status. Convert the courts/it sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job-related experience and qualifications. Create a 24/7 deputy post in the New Jail to supervise the newly opened housing unit recommended in the report to supplant the closure of Housing Units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail. Update the relief factor. Figure 32 summarizes the fiscal impact of these recommendations. Relative to current Corrections Bureau operations, we recommend elimination of 16 positions, adding 22 positions associated with recommended new posts, converting 5 officer positions to civilians, and adding 8 positions associated with updating the relief factor. The net impact of these reductions is an increase of 14 staff. The net fiscal impact of all of these recommendations, however, is a savings of $34.9 thousand. The reduction in overtime created by the update of the relief factor, the salary savings from conversion of 5 officer positions to civilians, and the high level of savings from the recommended reductions in command staff all combine to largely offset the additional cost created by the recommended 22 new positions. 74

78 Figure 32: Staffing and Fiscal impact of Recommendations Recommendation Staffing impact Fiscal impact ($000) Eliminate one captain post (1) $ (169.3) Eliminate one lieutenant shift commander post (4) $ (603.6) Eliminate housing unit posts for Units 3 East and 4 East (11) $ (1,076.5) Add housing unit post to New Jail 5 $ Add shift/foster Sergeant post 5 $ Add Main Jail Unit sergeant post 3 $ Add Housing Unit 3 South Control post 4 $ Add Housing Unit 3 South post 5 $ Convert courts/it sergeant, low voltage, general maintenance, supply, and public disclosure deputy posts to civilian positions $ (182.8) Update relief factor 8 $ (21.8) Total 14 $ (34.9) The recommended staffing plan addresses key areas driving overtime utilization and should substantially reduce the routine use of overtime to staff ongoing operational functions. The plan also addresses several key risk areas and moves the operation of the Corrections Bureau closer to compliance with recognized best practices. Figure 33 summarizes the posts and associated staffing recommended in this report. Figure 33: Corrections Bureau Recommended Posts Post/Position 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Hours/ Week Total FTEs Chief Captain Captain - Programs Lieutenant Admin Lieutenant Programs Lieutenant PREA/Medical Lieutenant Shift Lieutenant Sergeant Classification Sergeant Courts Sergeant Records/Release Sergeant JIP Sergeant Shift/Roster Sergeant Unit Sergeant Booking Sergeant (New Jail) Corrections Deputy 75

79 Post/Position 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Hours/ Week Total FTEs New Jail Control Room Booking Fingerprints/Photographs Booking Escort Release Housing 2A (84-Bed Dorm) B (84-Bed Dorm - Intake) C (84-Bed Dorm) D (2-42 Bed Dorms) A (84-Bed Dorm) B (84-Bed Dorm) C (84-Bed Dorm) D (84-Bed Dorm) A (84-Bed Dorm) B (84-Bed Dorm) C (84-Bed Dorm) D (84-Bed Dorm) nd Floor Escort rd Floor Escort Main Jail Clinic Security Officer Clinic Security Officer Housing 3 South (8 Units / 60 Beds) South F (1 Unit / 10 Beds) South Control West (4 Units / 90 Beds) North (5 Units / 80 Beds) South (4 Units / 90 Beds) West (3 Units / 90 Beds) North (3 Units / 90 Beds) West (4 Units / Female Intake) Escort Officer, 3rd Floor Escort Officer 4th Floor Career Development Reception Reception - New Jail

80 Post/Position 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Days 8 Hr. Swing 8 Hr. Graves 10 Hr. Days Days/ Week Hours/ Week Total FTEs Reception - Old Jail Visitation - Old Jail Visitation - Old Jail Classification Classification Deputy Classification Deputy Industries Prisoner Work Coordinator Workcrew Deputy Court Escort Court Escort Deputy Medical Transport Deputy Safety Deputy Background/Recruiting Deputy Civilians Office Assistant Facilities Supply Spec Administrative Assistant Facilities Maintenance Technician Computer Systems Bus. Analyst Corrections Tech Medical Director Detective Sergeant Mental Health Manager Budget Manager Mental Health Evaluator Dept. Computer Support Accounting Assistant Pre-Trial Screener

81 Appendix 1 Pierce County Corrections Bureau Response with Comments from CGL

82 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA RE: Technical Review of Draft Jail Operations Study Operations Recommendations 1. Develop written policy and procedures which will document and formalize in detail the purpose, processes, procedures, and reports that comprise the Corrections Bureau s current system for roster management. Support: The current system was implemented as a cost savings measure in 1999 and while an Instruction Book was created at that time, development of policies and procedure to formalize and structure the process is needed. CGL: Agree 2. Negotiate a change in the County s labor contracts to allow more management discretion in scheduling vacation leave. In the short term, explore hiring part time or per diem deputies that can be used during peak vacation periods to staff posts in the facility in lieu of overtime. If permissible under the law, retired deputies could be approached to see if they are interested in working part time. Support in concept: While we are supportive of the concept of distributing the vacation time more evenly throughout the year to avoid peak months, the Labor Unions will be opposed and it will have to be bargained. Part time or intermittent position development will be explored to determine potential savings of covering vacant posts at straight time vs. overtime. Concerns with providing current training and equipment needs will be addressed. CGL: Agree 3. Develop a system for collecting data on overtime and roster management that identifies the shift, location, pay period, and category of operational need that drives each hour of overtime incurred. Use this data to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the use of overtime versus additional staff to meet operational requirements. Support: An automated system to collect and track overtime usage was developed in However, that system was lost with the implementation of Workday in We are currently capturing the data manually and hope to automate by October, CGL: Agree 1

83 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Establish an alternative location to observe inmates requiring close supervision due to the threat of suicide. Two possible options are Unit 3 South (F), which is a small linear housing unit, where a deputy has the capability of directly observing inmates through their cell door and also observe them on a video monitor, as the cells are equipped with cameras. Support: The 3SF unit is the best option for supervising actively suicidal inmates. This unit has been operating on an OT, as needed basis and permanent funding has been requested for Permanent funding will reduce liability and improve the level of service with a stable, trained and consistent staffing complement. CGL: Agree 5. Establish in policy that male, female, and juvenile offenders should all be transported separately. Support: This change has been implemented. CGL: Agree 6. Conduct an analysis of alternative, cost effective means to provide pre shift briefing information through the use of technology or formalized communication protocols. The current methodology to brief staff is ineffective at achieving the goal of informing staff on a daily basis regarding policy/procedure issues and operational matters. Support: While best practices would support a paid briefing, we are exploring varied schedules as well as electronic display via web or TV monitor to pass on pertinent information from one shift to another. CGL: Agree 7. Establish a requirement of 40 hours of annual in service training for all custody staff. In order to develop and support the training program the Corrections Bureau should re establish the position of Training Officer. This individual will be responsible for organizing pre service and in service training for eligible employees and ensure that a quality training program is in place and being delivered. 2

84 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Support: This expansion of our current in service training is included in our 2015 budget requests. A minimum of 40 hours for in service annual training is supported by the American Corrections Association, National Institute of Corrections and American Jail Association. Increased training will result in reduced liability to the county. CGL: Agree 8. Institute a unified command structure over both the Main Jail and the New Jail. Support with reservations: The traditional organizational structure for jails delineates one captain over operations and one captain over programs. The creation of a unified command structure with two captains is currently being explored with the goals of fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities and improved communication, safety, security and program development. The reduction of an existing captain position is not recommended. A captain position was cut in 2011 which resulted in increased workloads for the existing captains, as well as program development being lost. PCSD Jail is the 2 nd largest jail in the state and the captains act as subject matter experts on legal issues and lawsuits, overseeing all personnel issues, developing and implementing policy and procedure, budget development and oversight, internal affairs and discipline matters, training etc. Reduction of one captain position would severely inhibit the developmental initiatives that need to occur and result in insufficient supervision based on size and physical location of the 2 jail facilities. Additional reaction from the Unions may include working out of class and unfair labor issues initiative grievance actions. Other jail comparisons to consider are (*see attached A organizational charts): Snohomish Chief, Major, 2 Captains; Clark Chief, 4 Commanders; King Director, Deputy Director, 2 Commanders, Chief of Administration, Community Corrections Director and Juvenile Director; Thurston Chief, 2 Captains; Multnomah County Chief, 4 Captains; Spokane Director, Assistant Director, 2 Managers; Pima County AZ Chief, 3 Captains. 3

85 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA CGL: Agree with clarification. As stated in our report, under the current command structure one captain manages operation of the Main Jail and the other Captain has primary responsibility for the operation of the New Jail. Our analysis indicates that operational command for both facilities should be unified. The Corrections Bureau s objection relates not to our specific recommendation to unify the command structure for jail operations, but instead addresses the need for two captains, taking into context program and administrative functions. Assuming the Corrections Bureau can make the case for a second captain based on non operational responsibilities, this is a separate issue from this recommendation, which deals only with our conclusion that one captain should to supervise jail operations in both the New Jail and the Main Jail. The issue of the need for the second captain to manage program issues is addressed in Recommendation # Explore the potential expansion of video hearings for District Court motion and plea hearing sessions and Superior Court arraignments. Support: Analysis is underway to cost out video connection to the municipal courts if contracting is reinstated. We will explore additional video options with District Court and Superior Court to reduce workloads. CGL: Agree 10. Develop a long range plan to augment the current camera surveillance system with cameras installed in inmate housing areas. Support with reservations: While we support this additional security equipment in concept the cost is prohibitive. This has been a budget request in past years. CGL: Agree. Adequate camera coverage throughout the jail is a significant security need. Establishing a long term plan that phases in installation of new cameras and surveillance systems over a period of years will allow the County to budget for this expenditure in affordable increments. 4

86 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Commence development of a scope for a capital project to upgrade facility security electronics to control access to Main Jail cellblocks from the officer station, thereby eliminating the need to carry cellblock keys into the living units. Not supported: The corrections deputies enter the housing units hundreds of times per day. Door control from the deputies station would cause delay and added workload. The consultants may not be aware that the keys only open the unit doors, central control can override the deputies key control in case of a takeover and egress through the gates is centrally controlled, preventing escape to other areas of the jail. CGL: Agree. The fact that central control can override the keys to the entry doors limits the utility of a facility security electronic upgrade. 12. Conduct research into the applicability and potential implementation of video visitation systems to supplant current visiting systems in the jail. Support: We are in the process of installing kiosks in the jail units and will be exploring various services such as medical and mental health requests (kites), inmate rules, commissary ordering and video visiting through the unit kiosks. CGL: Agree. 13. Revise the Policy Manual to address deficiencies in the areas of post orders, tool control, use of force, and training. Institute a process for annual review and update of the Policy Manual. Support: We will be reformatting our policies and procedures into the Lexipol structure in the near future. An annual review process is needed and will be implemented shortly. CGL: Agree. Capacity Management Recommendations 14. Compress the number of security classification levels from the present 9 levels to a system that utilizes 3 4 levels. 5

87 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Support: Dr. James Austin has completed an initial review of our current Classification System and recommended that we simplify and streamline our system. He is scheduled to return in September, October and December to work with our Classification staff to make improvements to our current system. CGL: Agree. 15. Develop a separate, validated risk instrument for use for the female offenders. Support: This recommendation will be followed up with Dr. James Austin and the future work on our Classification system. CGL: Agree. 16. Remove mandatory requirement that all presentence inmates remain in medium security until sentenced. A review of the inmate s history and review of the circumstances of the charges and arrest will result in a significant percentage of pre sentence offenders classified as appropriate for minimum security housing. Support: This recommendation will be followed up by Dr. James Austin and the work on revising our Classification system to streamline and make it more efficient. Those inmates that would qualify for a lower classification if they were not in a pre sentence status will be reviewed. CGL: Agree. 17. Conduct a formal study and potential replacement of the classification instrument to achieve a more normal distribution of the inmate population into minimum custody. Support: This recommendation will be followed up by Dr. James Austin and his work with us. CGL: Agree. 18. Remove the juvenile detainee population from the Jail. Juveniles should be housed in the County s juvenile detention facility or in an appropriate contract detention facility. 6

88 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Support: This move has been initiated with a letter to the Director of Juvenile Detention outlining the federal PREA violations and risk that is taken by the county to house juveniles at the PCSD Jail. CGL: Agree. 19. Consolidate the mental health population in an appropriate housing unit, with trained staff, pending revalidation of the jail s classification system. Support: Best practice dictates an integrated mental health housing program coordinated with objective classification and a discipline system that considers the mental health status of the inmate. Correction noted on housing labels in the report 3westA only has 12 not 24 cells, 3westB and 3northC are not mental health housing. We are in the process of identifying an appropriate unit that provides an adequate number of beds and secure cells for a centralized housing approach. CGL: Agree. By way of clarification, while 3 West A has 12 cells the double celled capacity of the unit is 24. Also, staff indicated that while not serving as mental units, 3 West B and 3 North C are used to house mentally ill offenders based on an as needed basis. 20. Close housing units 3 East and 4 East in the Main Jail and open one of the closed housing units in the New Jail. Support in concept. We agree that these units are antiquated (1950 s design) and offer poor lines of sight. While it may be an attractive move from a short term fiscal standpoint, operationally it would prohibit us from complying with court orders and federal laws related to ADA. The individual housing units in 3east and 4east are used to house distinct populations that cannot be housed elsewhere: Female inmates with ADA issues that cannot use stairs; Medical conditions that cause male and female inmates to be vulnerable in larger units; Court ordered phone restrictions; Protective custody; keep separate concerns from one or several other inmates housed in the Main Jail and New Jail. 7

89 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA CGL: Agree. We understand that the recent increase in the Jail s population may make the relocation of these inmates difficult in the short term. The key to identifying adequate housing for the special populations housed in these units is implementation of a new classification system that will more effectively identify the minimum security population and provide more flexibility in housing assignments for medium and minimum security offenders. Staffing Recommendations 21. Assign one of the two captain positions the Operations Captain for the Corrections Bureau and end the current dual operational command. The second captain position can be eliminated as a cost savings measure. The new Administrative Lieutenant (PREA/Medical) position can be used to oversee and supervise contracted services and other support units within the organization and that position can report to the Operations Captain. Not supported. This recommendation appears to be based solely on cost reduction rather than good correctional practice; it is ill advised and would severely affect our ability to manage the operations, programs and services. In 2011 a third captain position was eliminated resulting in reduced support and progress relative to inmate programs and services. The remaining two captains carry a full workload of responsibilities and supervision of Lieutenants and support staff. Assigning this work to a Lieutenant will constitute taking work from one bargaining unit to another and would be a violation of current union contracts regarding working out of class. It would be grieved by both the Captains and Lieutenant union associations. As stated in #8, comparable size facilities have the same or more captains along with majors in their staffing complement. We are currently short on PREA Compliance requirements with one PREA Coordinator who also has responsibility of Food Services and the Medical Contract with CCS. "The PREA Coordinator must have sufficient time and authority to develop, implement and oversee the agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards (11511(b) Where an agency operates more than one facility, each facility shall designate a PREA compliance manager (115,11 (c)". We will be reviewing this assignment and making some changes prior to our PREA Audit. (*see attachment B job classification description. CGL: Agree with clarification. The premise for the recommendation to eliminate the second captain was based on the current jail command structure, which splits responsibility for jail operations between the two captains. Jail management is studying a change in these duties, assigning the second captain responsibility for program development and management. The approach of 8

90 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA establishing one captain over operations and one captain over programs is a standard model for jail system management. The jail currently has an underdeveloped set of programs. Assignment of a captain to this area would be a positive step toward meaningful program development which we support. However, if the Corrections Bureau makes this change in assignment, we recommend deleting the Programs Lieutenant post included in our staffing recommendations. Establishment of a Programs Captain would make this post unnecessary. As a result of this deletion, the overall headcount impact of retaining the second captain relative to our recommended staffing is zero. 22. Establish a single lieutenant shift commander post for both the Main Jail and the New Jail, consistent with a unified command structure. The post will require relief and should be filled on a 24 hour/7 days per week (24/7) basis. Support with reservations: This recommendation appears to be cost shifting and would not be supported by the Lieutenants or Sergeants Union. It would result in possible grievances and/or lawsuits. Sergeants would be working out of class; the one Lieutenant couldn't possibly offer necessary supervision to both jail staff based on distance between the two facilities. A reduction in Lieutenant's on Graveyard shift to one Lieutenant for both facilities could however be explored during the planned comprehensive Staffing Analysis. CGL: Agree with clarification. The recommendation to establish one lieutenant shift commander post is premised upon the need to unify operational command over both the Main Jail and the New Jail and the establishment of an additional shift/roster sergeant post (Recommendation #24) to relieve the Shift Lieutenant of administrative duties. If the shift/roster sergeant post cannot be established due to current collective bargaining agreements, we agree that a second Shift Lieutenant post is required. 23. Convert the Courts/IT Sergeant post to a civilian position with information technology experience and qualifications. Support with reservations: The current IT/Courts Sergeant has a great degree of knowledge of the operations, programs, services and facility resources which enhance his ability to make decisions regarding the LINX system. This Sergeant assists the court team, covers high profile trials, oversees personnel issues, conducts medical transports and provides relief during absences or higher 9

91 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA workload demand. This relief work should be analyzed prior to creating a permanent to evaluate the cost benefit of converting to a civilian position. This Sergeant creates reports and conducts data analysis upon demand for not only the department but also external requests. If replaced by an IT Technician position, they are paid a higher salary and all corrections and court relief currently covered by the IT/Court Sergeant would be on Overtime. (*See attachment C for corrected fiscal impact.) CGL: Agree with clarification. This post is in the Career Development category, and as such is a temporary assignment. To the extent that the current IT/Courts Sergeant provides effective service in this post, we support deferring the conversion of this post to a specialized civilian post until such time as the incumbent returns to a regular custody assignment. 24. Create a Shift/Roster Sergeant post with 24/7 coverage to provide support for Shift Commanders and manage staff deployment. Not Supported: This would require funding for an entire post of Sergeants and is not cost effective. It would result in a violation of negotiated union contracts and would potentially result in unfair labor practices, skimming and working out of class. Further evaluation of this recommendation should occur. CGL: Agree with clarification. The intent of this post is to provide support for the one lieutenant shift commander post identified in Recommendation #22. If establishment of a shift/roster sergeant post would violate current union agreements and could not be implemented, we recommend deleting this recommended post and adding a lieutenant post to perform these responsibilities. 25. Create a second Unit Sergeant for the Main Jail on the Day and Swing shifts, seven days per week to better manage existing workload demands. Support: This recommendation has been included in budget requests for approximately nine years. It is indicated in the Sheriff's Five Year Plan in 2007 and the budget requests for The Floor Sergeants work load has increased due to a higher volume of disturbances, mentally ill and drug affected inmate population. The Sergeants mediate complaints before they become formal grievances and unlike many other jails, our Corrections Deputies are commissioned to carry weapons and possess arrest powers. The Sergeants investigate crimes occurring in custody, write general reports, collect evidence 10

92 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA and get subpoenaed to court, the workload is significant and a second Sergeant on days and swing shifts in the Main Jail is justified and much needed. CGL: Agree. 26. Create a Control Unit post for Housing Unit 3 South with 24/7 coverage to provide improved supervision of the high risk population housed in the Unit. Support: Again, this recommendation has been requested through budget requests in past years including the forthcoming 2015 budget request. The jail has been augmenting this position with light duty staff and pulling escort officers affecting their transporting of inmates within the facility. CGL: Agree. 27. Create a Housing Unit post for Unit 3 South F with 24/7 coverage to allow effective, centralized supervision on inmates on suicide watch status. Support: Permanent funding for this unit is required with the number of active suicidal inmates requiring direct supervision, (see #4). The addition of this post would reduce potential liability for the county by providing direct supervision and camera monitoring by a deputy and would free up other cells to provide housing for violent and combative inmates. CGL: Agree. 28. Convert the Low Voltage, General Maintenance, Supply, and Public Disclosure Deputy posts to civilian positions with appropriate requirements for job related experience and qualifications. Support with reservations: Low voltage: The salary for a specialized maintenance technician manager costs anywhere from $85K to $110K not including calling outs; Deputy currently provides backup for emergencies and for other posts in the jail, avoiding overtime; KSA s of Corrections Operations demonstrated significant cost savings; Policy and Procedure development of security electronics issues. General Maintenance Deputy: 11

93 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA Deputy currently provides backup for emergencies and relief, avoiding overtime; Maintains security and accountability of keys, vehicles and radios that cannot be maintained by civilians; Supervises inmate work crews (inside and outside facilities); Originally cut from a LT to a SGT, then from a SGT to a deputy position; Similar duties conducted by a captain in patrol; Subject to mandatory overtime. Supply Deputy: Weekly Relief and backup for emergencies; Supervises inmate work crews (inside and outside facilities) this is an armed position; Other facilities such as King County has a Sergeant working this position; Subject to mandatory overtime. (*See attachment C for corrected fiscal impact.) CGL: Agree. The job responsibilities associated with these posts do no justify the assignment of a correctional deputy. To the extent that the current incumbents provides effective service, we support deferring the conversion of these posts to civilian job assignments until such time as the incumbents return to regular custody assignments. 29. Limit the duration that a deputy may be assigned to a light duty post to six months, thereby reducing the number of staff in that status to a manageable number. Support in concept: Position is held for 12 months per administrative guidelines. Positions are noted in Guild contract. Some are covering budgeted positions that would most often be filled by overtime. Current use off sets costs: special duty assignments, i.e., background, training FTO, maintenance projects, mail, etc. CGL: Agree. 30. Conduct an audit of Corrections Bureau staff leave data to document its accuracy. Support: Our new system 'Workday' canceled this report which was previously generated by our older system. We are in the process of developing an automated replacement with IT (see #3). 12

94 Pierce County Sheriff s Department Corrections Bureau 910 Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA CGL: Agree. 31. Update the relief factor to accurately determine the number of staff required to provide recommended post coverage without reliance upon overtime. In order to maximize operational efficiency, we recommend that the relief factor update be applied to the recommended post roster, which incorporates the operational improvements developed in this report. Support: If an accurate relief factor is established with related funding, our overtime expenditures will potentially be reduced if population and designated posts remain consistent. CGL: Agree. 13

95 Court SelVlO,S facdlue, Release Med.cal Pro\lders Food Semces Contract MOlUtonng VISitation July 3(1, 2014 \ Y'i\..)O~.,,~ 1. tca.,-\o.~t\~

96 Administrative Assistant Valerie Deming \ - CJ"e~ it- Gt\1J)1Q.nd(!f5 Administrative Support Debbie Maudlin Extra Duty SRO Outreach Forfeiture Hearings Amphitheater MRT Explorers Drug Task Force Intelligence A,B Squads Property / SRT Leadership/SMART Training / Facilities Skills Cntr JWC Operations Inmate Programs Work Release Food Services Laundry I RMS/CMS Steering Attendance.. Jail Records Criminal Records Warrants Evidence Logistics Equipment Seized Property Radios & Telecom Training "BaokgmUnd.. Recruitment Labor Budget Purchasing Contracts GrantMgmt Commissary SWATIEOD Traffic / Marine TDU/CCAT ASU / SSTF Region 4 K-9/CVE CRESA/SOR Planning & Accred MCU /CJC Unusual Occurrence Coordinator Crime Analysis PIO Transport MedicallMental Health Video Arraign/phone Support Staff7 Front Desk Re-Entry/Skills Cntr C,D,E,F Squads Deployment Planning / PDR BOI / PREA / CIT Programs Classification Safety Committee Case Mgmt Campus Security Campus Unit Risk Mgmt Health & Safety Internal Affairs I. T. Cadets Reception.17.13

97 Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention ~\~~ c(). Interim Department KC Human Director Confidential secreta-;;lll Resources Division William Hayes Steven Falcon...I (DES) Nancy Buonanno Grennan KC Chief of Operations Rhonda Berry ~ l Internal Human Resources Section Cynthia McNabb Investigations Unit Captain Troy Bacon (Interim) Training Steering Committee Deputy Director Hikari Tamura I,- Administrative Seattle Division Kent Division Juvenile Division Community Services Division Facility Commander Facility Commander Director Corrections Division Chief of Administration Gordon Karlsson Edwin Bautista Pam Jones Director Steven larsen (Acting) Nate Caldwell..~ 8/1/2014

98 eriffs Office CHIEF DANIELS, KAREN SUPPORT DIVISION CAPTAIN EATON, GEORGE CD OPERATIONS CAPTAIN THOMA, TODD 1 ::;ES FSM AFM FSS FSS FSS 5 ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR VACANT INMATE SERVICES L 1. THOMPSON, DEBBIE INFORMATION SYSTEMS BROWN, PAT MIS/SG\1 CORRECTIONS TECHNICIAN RHOADES, KENNETH ( 1 )NS PROGRAM LERIE INMATE SERVICES BELCHER, CLAUDE HOUSE, JACK lss/sgt CO SGT SGT CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO s) CO CT PROVIDERS COP COP COP COP MEDICAL/ADMIN. MEDICAL/ADMIN MEDICALlMD MH CLINICAL COORD MH COURT MH COORD MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL HEALTH (SPSCC) ABE (SPSCC) EDUC ASST 'amed on the ADMINISTRATIVE LT. -- DAYSHIFT BAILEY, GARY FLOATER CO'S LE, TUNG BEALL, TYSON WATSON, THOMAS GRAHAM, HEATHER CO CO.6CO.6 CO MEDICAL LIAISONS SMITH, PATTY MLS/SGT GUILL, SKIP MLO/CO BELCHER, LINDA MTO/CO CD COURT OFFICERS TIM MILLS STEFFEN, RICHARD OLSEN,ROBERT ElLEFSON, ARTHUR BECKER,STEVE BENEFIELD, TERESA YOUNG, MIKE ABERCROMBIE, VERLENE SGT LCO CO CO CO CO CO CO EXTRA HELP STAFF/PART-TIME CO'S BALLEW. MAX MORGAN. CHRISTEL MCKENZIE. LORENZO SCHELL. ANN GRAHAM. HEATHER MARQUEZ SANRICA WATSON. THOMAS ROBBINS. PATRICK EIH FSS EIH FSS EIH FSS EIH CT PIT SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENTS AND ADDITIONAL DUTY ASSIGNMENTS (are named on the reverse.) Chief Captain Associate Administrator Lieutenants Sergeants Corrections Officers.6 FTE Corrections Officers Food Services Staff Admin. Support Staff Master Control Corr. Technicians TOTAL REVISED: 11/1106 November 06 Org Chart.vsd

99 Sheriff Daniel Staton \"\~~~~ U)~ \$ u.~o.. ~"\ ~\U~, '\b"""""':1 t\~ Q,~ 0.. '.. tb\"t\f... -t..", ~r \.\~;-\...i\ ~ '!'..:,\s. ( Executive StaU DMne Hutchlnaon, Admin. Au/mnt Lt Sttlve Alexander, PlO I!d Stelle, Cheple/n Undersheriff Tim Moore ---- Em(cnigall S&lDdardl Lleuten""t H.-ry Smith - Internal Affairs Inspections BIIIIIII B~IIIII[ U Jannlfer Ott, Men""er o Human Resources Backgrounds - Wortplace Intervention o Front Deak I Reception 1 Bllllolli Sla~11 Chle'Deputy Linde Yenk.. Corrections Chief Deputy Mike Shul" &DffU:'IIDIO! Ch,., Deputy JHon Get.. fllaal " Bl:aUtCb Ilai' ShH M.-.hm"", DlnH:tor Data Analytical Research Program Analysis FIsqIUo;t Wande y""u., Men""er Fiscal Payroll IqlnlnB ljoit CIIPt.1n o.v. Rllder oagency-wlde Tl'linlng CgaB&iRII &liliagd IIDil Joyce QrIffIn, Mene,.,. Corrections Records I-' I-' Ctimillil.Il1m"llafQ, SDlIlDI Andy Po.,. M""eger ~ - Information Technology -Web Muter Mcnc IDetcatjoQ Clatar) ClIPtaln Den1ck Peterson B ooklng Maxlmum Security Detention.p opulation Release MCIJ alyero..., Jajll Captain MIllY Llnd."."nd Adminjs illl!in Sma Julie Lon", A dmln. Au/afllllt Je"Wheel~, AdmlnLt. John Melli"", Admin. Sgt. Max I Medium Security DetentJo nr-' Inmate Wort Craws Tr ansport Hub Court Services Section CI/Ptaln Rei Ad".,.. 0 Courthouse Security /Holding -T ransparts ofadllty Security Facility Sirvin' Seetjon CIIPt.1n Joee Marline - Close Street Supervision o Classification I Hearings - Inmate Programs Volunteers - Correetlons Contracts o Jail Chaplain Services ~ - blml CIIPt.1n Monte Re;'er Uniform Patrol - CMI Process - TriMet o Logistics Unit IIDBialiiDi Lieutenant Ned Walla o CAT I Detectives I OVERT o Dangerous Drugs I SIU I Metro - Human Traf!lcklng I EMGET o Warrant Task Force I Intercept Bi!lz:EI&ml Lieutllllant Trw;' GuJlbetg - Columbia OffIce o 1IIIIIIametta OftIce EafQBlmSlI& SIPII/til Becky ChRd, M",,1It1eT Alarms Law Enforcement Records - LEOS Representative Warrants I Word Processing - Concealed Handgun Ucen&es :: Slo::l"lI CIIPt.ln Deve Reder o Inmate Property I Laundry - Commissary o Procurement l I-'... r-'... I Multnomah County Sheriffs Office Organizational Chart Apri12, 2014 ~ ~

100 SPOKANE COUNTY DETENTION SERVICES Dtt"tdrnr \ t1&si-. 'j)rt.~~r 1 M.U\...~("s Director John C. McGrath [ ~minm9r Jan SedDf I Acct. Tech (4)! r---===u-' _..----;.. ; I I r i'~- I Officer(3) Officer!S) Officer (2) Teacher (I) Ca Mgr (2) Maint (2)

101 Pima County Sheritf's Department :: Corrections Bureau Page 1 of 1 Home> About Us :> Organization Charts> Corrections Bureau Corrections Bureau Corrections Bureau Byron Gwaltney Chief Housing Operations Sean Stewart Corrections Captain Support Services Joshua Arnold Corrections Captain Information & Planning India Davis Corrections Captain «Return to Organization Charts 7/

102 e Pierce Connty CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN Classification Description Department: Sheriff FLSA: Exempt Job Class #: Represented: Yes Pay Range: 9NO I CSC Approved: Classification descriptions are intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed by employees in the class. Classification descriptions are not intended to reflect all duties performed within the job. GENERAL FUNCTION: This is highly responsible supervisory and division management work performed for the Pierce County Sheriffs Department Corrections Bureau. This position typically reports to the Corrections Bureau Chief. Guidelines for performing the work can be broad or ofa specific nature, and are in the form ofgeneral administrative policies and procedures. Division assignments include Operations, Support Services or Programs, or other assignments that may be developed; assignments rotate. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: Plan, administer, coordinate, manage, and supervise the activities of an assigned division within the Sheriffs Department Corrections Bureau. Develop division goals and objectives; implement effective measures to meet established goals and objectives. Supervise all assigned personnel; includes scheduling, assignments, performance review, training and development, resolution ofpersonnel issues, and recommendations for selection and disciplinary action. Prepare, justify, and monitor division budget. Monitor and evaluate division operations and effectiveness; assess equipment and operational needs; make recommendations for purchase; maintain inventory records. Frequently represent the Sheriff on matters being presented before County Departments, public service agencies, community groups and the general public. Assist in development of Department policies and procedures; make recommendations for revisions or new policies and procedures; assure consistent and accurate application of policies and procedures. Establish and maintain constructive and effective working relationships, both within and outside the Corrections Bureau. Effectively persuade, inform, educate, train, solicit information and motivate a wide variety ofindividuals or groups. Effectively coordinate, perform, and complete multiple duties and assignments concurrently and in a timely manner. May be responsible for overall Department decisions while acting in the capacity ofbureau Chief, as assigned. May represent the County in labor negotiations as part ofthe management team Maintain regular, predictable and punctual attendance. Perform the functions of Command Duty Officer when assigned. Perform the physical requirements ofthe position; work within the established working conditions of the position. Perform all essential functions as required of the Corrections Deputy classification. OTHER JOB FUNCTIONS: Perform other job functions as assigned.

103 CORRECTIONAL CAPTAIN Classification Description Page 2 SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED: Correctional Captains report directly to the Bureau Chief and work is reviewed for fulfillment ofdivisionlbureau objectives, for conformance with governing laws and regulations, adherence to budget, and support and furtherance ofdepartment mission, vision and goals. The Correctional Captain position has full supervisory responsibility for commissioned, technical, administrative and/or clerical personnel, and may be assigned volunteers. WORKING ENVIRONMENT: The work environment characteristics described herein are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of the position. A Correctional Captain works indoors on a regular basis, in an office, within inmate detention areas (clusters) or in close proximity to inmates and detention areas, within the confined space of a secure adult correctional facility. Frequent travel to and from various work sites and/or meeting locations is required. Work is subject to frequent interruptions and higher than average levels ofnoise within enclosed areas. A Correctional Captain may be exposed to physically confrontive and combative situations, personal danger and bio-hazardous materials. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: The physical demands described herein are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions ofthe position. The classification of Correctional Captain has physical requirements of varying degrees based on numerous differing work circumstances. Required physical activities include walking, standing, sitting, digital dexterity, talking, hearing and seeing. A Correctional Captain must be able to clearly distinguish and identify colors, be able to safely drive a vehicle, accurately discharge a firearm (either hand), be able to successfully discriminate electronic, mechanical and human sounds and operate required equipment in a safe and lawful manner for the protection/safety ofthe public, inmates, ofselfand ofother employees. A Correctional Captain may be called upon to assist in emergency situations, and must maintain physical ability to deal with physical confrontive or combative situations including use ofreasonable force up to and including deadly force. Required physical activities during those times include, but are not limited to, running,jumping, balancing, climbing, crawling, kneeling, bending, stooping, crouching, reaching, lifting, carrying, dragging, throwing, pushing/pulling both objects and people. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: Knowledge of: Modem corrections methods, procedures and philosophies. General administrative policies and procedures. Rules and regulations ofthe Sheriffs department. Principles and practices of current management and supervisory theory. Pierce County Codes, laws and ordinances affecting jail operations. Applicable laws, ordinances, policies and procedures. Behavior of criminals and causes underlying criminality. Methods and procedures involved in budget development, justification and control. Literature, developments and trends in the field ofcorrections, correctional standards, technology and laws. Corrections Bureau Emergency Management Plan and emergency evacuation plans and procedures. Provisions ofapplicable collective bargaining agreements. Disciplinary procedures for staff and inmates. Basic personal computing principles, keyboard, and corrections automated systems. Different and unrelated processes that relate to well-established aspects of law enforcement administration. RIO'7 d/lo