HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12101985 - IO.4 Ij
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEECon}
ra
DATE:
November 25, 1985 CWIQ
coufty
SUBJECT; Detention Staffing Analysis
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AM JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Indicate that the Board does not support total replacement
of Deputy Sheriffs in' the County' s detention facilities with
Correctional Officers.
2 . Direct the County Administrator, Director of Personnel, and
Sheriff-Coroner to conduct a further analysis of the
feasibility of using non-sworn personnel in various roles in
the Detention Division in positions that do not have as
their primary responsibility that of supervising inmates.
Examples of positions which might be studied include
Bailiffs, Transportation Officers, Work Alternative Project
staff, Classification Officers, staff in the Bureau of
Administrative Services, and Work Furlough field and custody
officers. A report on the results of these studies should
be made to the Board in conjunction with the 1986-1987
budget process.
3 . Direct the County Administrator to develop any further
comparisons which can be made on detention staffing patterns
among Contra Costa, Solano, and Ventura counties.
BACKGROUND:
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the County
Administrator' s Office carried out a study of detention facility
staffing. The .purpose of the study was to provide information
which Contra Costa County could use in developing, if possible,
more cost-effective custody staffing patterns for its adult
detention facilities. The report: "Detention Staffing Analysis
Study" , was presented to the Board July 19, 1985 and referred to
the Internal Operations Committee. (Attachment #1) The report
, was circulated to interested 'individuals and organizations.
Written responses were received from the Sheriff-Coroner, the
Deputy Sheriffs ' Association, Public Employees Union Local One,
the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association, and the
Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission. A
summary of these responses and the full responses are attached.
(Attachment #2)
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I END T ' N OF BOARD COMMI FEE~
X APPROVE OTHER
)m
SIGNATURE(S): Tom Torlakson p ToJ owers
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 19-, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED -X_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED /O
Personnel Director I-
-Sheriff-Coroner PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Deputy Sheriffs' Association SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Employees Local 1
Taxpayers Association BY ,k.?.f� )A-0-k-.r/ Y,DEPUT
M382/7-83
Page 2
The report and responses were presented at the October 14, 1985
meeting of the Internal Operations Committee. Additional
information was requested of the County Administrator' s Office at
that meeting and presented at the November 25, 1985 Internal
Operations Committee meeting. (Attachment #3 ) Testimony on
detention staffing was given at the November 25, 1985 meeting by
the following people:
Earnest Clements, Chief of Police, Richmond and
Police Chiefs ' Association
Donald L. Christen, Executive Vice President
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Henry Clarke, General Manager
Public Employees Union Local One
Paul Katz, Administrative Assistant
Public Employees Union Local One
Clemitt Swagerty, Chair
Marie Goodman, Member
Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission
Richard Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner
Jerry Mitosinka, Assistant Sheriff
Larry Ard, Chief Deputy Sheriff
Larry Aulich, Deputy Sheriffs ' Association
Testimony from all parties, with the exception of Local One
representatives, supported the option of maintaining Deputy
Sheriffs as supervisors of inmates in the Contra Costa County
adult detention facilities. Several arguments were raised in
support of this option:
o Due to rising salaries of correctional officers,
particularly at the California Department of
Corrections (where they will be hiring 3 ,500 additional
staff in the next year) , and similar benefit packages
for deputies and correctional officers, significant
cost savings are not likely.
o Deputy Sheriffs provide more flexibility than
correctional officers within the Sheriff ' s Department
and in case of emergencies or disasters.
o More correctional officers than deputies may be
required to do the same job.
Local One representatives argued that a correctional officer
position, such as that used in Solano County, would reduce
detention facility costs and that these savings could be given to
other needed services, such as those for abused children and drug
addicts. They distinguished the type of correctional officer
used in Solano County who do not carry weapons with that of State
correctional officers who are trained in the use of weapons and,
in fact, carry them and continue to maintain that the use of
correctional officers like those used in Solano County would
result in large savings.
Page 3
Supervisor Torlakson indicated he has no trouble with the use of
non-sworn personnel in positions which require some inmate
supervision. He also suggested the need to review the cost of
training sworn versus non-'sworn personnel, in addition to the
ongoing operational costs and savings.
Our Committee also notes that architectural decisions may have to
be made prior to the time for the 1986-87 County Budget. In
cases where such decisions will affect the use of sworn versus
non-sworn personnel, these decision points need to be brought to
the attention of the Board of Supervisors.
• MA e -`
DETENTION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY
Prepared by
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
July 1985 ,
DETENTION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
•III. Summary of Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. . Operating Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV'. 'Conclusions' , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .
Appendixes,
Appendix 1: Survey Results
A. Alameda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Contra Costa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Kern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. . Riverside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 7
F. Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
G. San Bernardino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
H. San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
I. San Mateo . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
J. Santa Clara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
K. Solano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
L. Sonoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
M. Ventura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix 2: Detention Staffing Survey
DETENTION S'T'AFFING ANALYSIS STUDY
TABLES
Page No.
Table 1: Use of Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers
in California County Fails 3
Table 2: Detention System Personnel and Budget Figures 6
Table 3: Counties Ranked According to Operational Cost Indices 10
Table 4: Pay Scale for Deputy Sheriff and Classification
Supervising Inmates 12
DETENTION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY `
I. BACKGROUND .
At the request of the Board of Supervisors,' this Office carried out a study of
detention facility staffing. The purpose of the study was to provide
information which Contra Costa County could use in developing, if possible, more
cost-effective custody staffing patterns for its adult detention facilities.
This question-is of.. particular importance because the County is planning a new
560-bed pretrial. and sentenced detention facility. This facility is scheduled
to open within the next five years and will require staff increases in the
Sheriff's. Department .Detention .Division.
In planning for the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF), the Board of Supervisors
decided to employ direct supervision of inmates by staff within the housing
units. Despite negative predictions by many professionals within and outside
the County, this approach has worked extremely well. Vandalism and graffiti are
almost non-existent within the facility. There have been dramatic reductions in
sexual assaults and the level of violence experienced against staff and other
inmates. . Few escapes and no major disturbances have occurred. High staff
morale, job satisfaction, and pride in work have been achieved. The facility
and supervision strategy, although strained, continues to operate efficiently
even.though the facility has been up to 70 percent over capacity. The detention
facility operation meets the highest correctional standards in the country.
Contra Costa County was the first in the country to use direct supervision of
inmates in a county jail, and the MDF serves the country as a National Institute
of Corrections Resource Center. One hundred seventy-five tours of the MDF are
taken each year. Direct supervision is now implemented in many county jails
across the country. In February 1984, the Advisory Board of the National
Institute of Corrections "formally endorsed the direct supervision/non-barrier
approach to correctional facility design and operation for those jurisdictions
contemplating construction or renovation of prisons and jails."*
The programming work for the new West County Justice Center assumes continuation
of this direct supervision model. However, a great deal of information and
experience has been gained over the last four years of operating the Martinez
Detention Facility that can be applied to the design and staffing configurations
in the new facility to use staff more efficiently. For example, based on the
behavior of the vast majority of inmates at the MDF, it appears possible (if the
difficult prisoners remain at the MDF) to increase the number of inmates per
housing.unit that can be supervised by one individual. Also, more freedom of
movement can be provided to most inmates (inmates moving to programs rather than
programs moving to inmates) without increasing staff. The physical design of
the building has significant influence on the staff-to-inmate ratio that can be
achieved. We are researching different physical configurations to make the
operation more efficient; for example, consideration has been given to having
one individual monitor up to 130 inmates during the graveyard shift. Currently,
*See Designs for Contemporary Correctional Facilities, National Institute of
Corrections Facility Monograph Project, 1985, .p. vi.
1
i
one deputy monitors 55 inmates on each shift. Systemwide consolidation of
certain functions, such as transportation, is also being studied to determine
if efficiencies can be achieved. The programming report for the new facility
will include all proposed staffing and costs. The report will be ready in the
next few months.
Currently in Contra Costa County, Sheriff's deputies are responsible for the
direct supervision of inmates; however, there may be a number of different types
of staff that could provide detention functions. This issue has been studied
during the planning for the Martinez Detention Facility and again during the
Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan process. The purpose of this study is
to .look again at this issue, given current circumstances, to explore options as
they have been used in other counties, and to suggest how they might apply to
Contra Costa, County.
II. METHODOLOGY
Preliminary telephone inquiries were made in each county in California regarding
the classification of staff that supervised inmates in the adult detention
facilities. From these inquiries, it was determined that there were three basic
staffing models (see Table 1):
(1) Use of sworn deputy sheriffs only;
(2)_Use of non-sworn correctional officers only; and
(3) . Use of a combination of deputy sheriffs and correctional officers.
2
Table' 1:
USE OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
IN CALIFORNIA COUNTY JAILS
County Jail Staff Organization
Deputy Correct.
Inmate Sheriffs Officers
Populations Only Only Both Total
0 - 250' 9 (3) (4) 15 4 (1) 28
251 - 500- 1 5 2 8
501 - 1000 3 (4) 2 3 (l) 8
1001 - over 7 (4) 1 4 (2) 12
Total 20 23 13 56
Notes to Table 1e
(1) El Dorado and San Joaquin are in the process of converting to correctional
officers.
(2) Los Angeles has four percent correctional officers remaining who work
only' at the minimum security facility. These positions are being eliminated
through attrition.
(3) Placer is in the process of converting their correctional officers, to deputy
sheriffs (27) and correctional technicians (no inmate contact--167.'
(4) In Tuolumne, Yuba, Sutter, Alameda, San Bernardino, and San Mateo, there
are two classes of deputy -one for the field and a lower paid deputy for
detention.
3
:There are numerous variations of the models. For example, some counties use two
classifications of sworn staff, with one classification being primarily
responsible for detention functions at a lower pay scale. In those counties
that use correctional officers for inmate supervision, some supervise
correctional officers with sworn staff; other counties supervise correctional
officers with non-sworn sergeants and lieutenants. Some counties use
correctional officers for inmate supervision, while others use correctional
officers for limited detention functions only (escorting, fingerprinting, or in
certain types of facilities, e.g. , minimum security). Generally, the majority
of counties with fewer inmates to supervise use correctional officers, and
counties operating large institutions use sworn deputies.
A questionnaire was developed, with the assistance of staff from the Contra
Costa:County. Sheriff and Personnel Departments, to obtain more detailed
'information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these staffing models.
Thirteen_ counties were selected for further study, including Contra Costa
County. These counties have been included in prior studies related to Sheriff's
Department organizational issues because they are similar in size and structure
`to Contra Costa' County. They also represent the three basic models of detention
staffing.
III. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
The: problems' involved' in comparing one county with another are complex and not
subject to. easy description .or analysis. An extensive amount of information is
required from each county in order to compare the costs and benefits of
different systems. (see Notes to Table 2). Perfect comparisons are not possible.
The pay scale in one county may be lower than another due to labor force
availability. . The inmate population in one county may require greater security
precautions than the inmate population in another.. The average staff-to-inmate
ratio is 1:6.3 for the surveyed counties. However, this average includes at
least one minimum security facility which is operated at a ratio of 1:30..
County policies regarding the use of alternatives to incarceration may lead to
variations in staffing costs. Also, it is not possible to ascertain whether the
facilities in this study are being operated in a safe manner. Information
regarding compliance with State of California Minimum Jail Standards and
significant litigation is included in this analysis to provide some background.
A description of the detention system in each of the twelve surveyed counties is
contained in Appendix 1: Survey Results. Comparisons between the counties are
made in the three following general areas: facilities, staff, and operating
conditions.
A. Facilities
With a few exceptions, the thirteen counties provide similar detention
services. All counties have one large main jail that holds primarily
persons awaiting trial and, in some cases, sentenced persons who cannot be
held in less secure settings. Riverside County operates four such
facilities, and Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa
have an additional separately located branch jail.
All thirteen counties operate at least one honor farm-type facility for
mostly sentenced inmates. A number of counties operate a complex of
4
facilities on a single site. For example, Alameda County operates three
facilities at the Santa Rita site for' pretrial male inmates, sentenced
males, and females in a range of 'security levels.
Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara operate separate work furlough
facilities for men and women. ' Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Ventura
operate coed facilities. Fresno, Riverside, San Joaquin, Solano, and
Sonoma operate work furlough programs out of their sentenced facilities.
Kern and San Bernardino do not operate any type of work furlough program.
Sonoma and Ventura are the only two counties where the Sheriff does not
provide a "work in lieu of jail" program (PC 4024.2) in which persons
sentenced to jail may instead work on public projects.
The counties-with the,-lowest per-inmate operating cost operate the fewest
facilities: San Bernardino (2), Fresno (2), Kern (2), Sonoma (2), and San
Joaquin (3 facilities at one. site). The county with the highest cost per
inmate (San Mateo) operates the most facilities (5). Personnel and cost
comparisons are displayed in Tables 2 and 3.
San Bernardino, Contra Costa, and Riverside Counties have the lowest cost
per citizen for detention.
5
C w 0
Q) U •'1 CD N O Ln to 1 co 0 v rn r•i 01 ..
w N W J) O O rn v v O N N D N r1 W O
v •+ cr
a i) ,W Q) o Ln o 01 Ln o 01 r- O v rn ID t1 01
-•iN 41 N r-1 H N14 N r-1 N N ri ri N
U.O a)
U A
Lr
G w
rq ri Lo O m O a`Ln N W m v M of
,� a Q1 N v h h m tD t0 01 mto t(nO tD tD '
Ld 41tD r N r-1 Ln r-1 tD M r v O - O of 1D O
w ,) Id
Q) Ln E O L') n r ri O t0 r v 14 O of O O
O U f1
y
w C to O O Ot O r N 61 N N tD
:jN 140 O m O O N to O tD tD O coLb h r-1 ID
,J ,) •rt \ O O en N C Ln 6t r O N Ln IT N
•riQ) 4J -,T
'O o+ C m Ln N O Ln n Ln .-1 r ID o of c ra m
C 'o (1) of " Dt of- co N m -t•1 ID v r O tD v Ln
0 a ✓ r4 O of 1 W N O Ln O N of r-i M C
X OI ] > v O ON fn N r of h N P') In Ln v
W w N ri 11 r-1 en .•i
1 0
O N 1) Q) co C1 cD r♦ Ln rl r-i N O tD r-I (r1 N M
,moi > w m y Ln v m rn v Ln m r IR to 12 V L71 tD
ro ww_�
C. a lis ri
H ri - ,r•1 ri r♦ r-1 r♦ .••i r-1 r•1 r•i ri r-1 .-1
H
w ,) O Q)
a C -rr G
H Q) w V C ea da da dP as dP dp dP an an da do do
W U o C 0 N r r•1 ra o ri d' to m �o Ln 'i Ln
w 3 Q) (n h r Ln m r r v m r v
Q) Ln ,) w
a Q) (u
CJ a
Q N Id w w'
r4 0 a)
w 2d U n OO O 1 m O Ln O r v n N
.. � JO-) W 1 r�-1 r to Ln N of O
u o..
Z
N- O Q)
-ri C-ri C
W w w LI C .-i O .-1 N O O v .4 ri co ID N r
a O -O C O of r N M tD c0 r v th M
.0 3 Q) N M .- F N ra r-I v r-i
,J U)-u w4
W < A 11
H
a) O N
N
U) -rl r•1 -.-1 C
w it W C � W .-1 .-1 1 � D r Ln m v to � %D.z 0 ,J C O (rl v N Ln Ln O to v Ln Ln h 14 r O
Q 0 w v Ln N .•� N en m N -1 r•1 Ln r-1 r-4 m
,.1 w
F-I a o a
H
H o
W ,moi w
A w a O c v CD O7 N N v O M O N v r
O O
U N of ri N co L^ of V' N 'O' N of to N 01
w ,j O r-1 14 N Ln .-1 1•1 r♦ N ri N r-I r•i N r•1
N � rx r•I
Q) N
Q)
C Ln
[.-4 T rJ O m '
'd C 'd v n O O ID O N r r•1 a% N N Ln m
b H b CD v (+l co N O CD of 11 v r .-i trl r•i
w 1-1 Qt N N co N c 1D v of c0 O Ln Ln Lh
Q) O .-i
> 4 Q1 N .-1 r♦ 14 r-1 ri M
4 •r1 0 >�
o a w a
O '-i Ln O ra v O r4 N n r ri r) of
>i•r) r- O r ri r o r tD of tD of N o1
,j 4J r v tD m r o+ r v .1 c C C v
c rt
rJ ra v 0 r r n O o o v Ln Ln 0 n tD 0 a w o of
o
0 12 r O 61 O to O
u n. .-1 n Ln v n to o v ID ri N r1 Ln
0
ro Q
,�) N O 'U - N W.N
U ' b ) G O' 0 .-roi O..Oi
o ro .1 w w m aJ v ro vu
p
U t13 fa c
C ai w > U OG C C —rot G 4 w8
o w m , I'd ro ro 5 o o Q) >
a v w u i m to m Ln m o to a.
6
NOTES TO TABLE ,2
1. County population - Source: Department of Finance, January 1985.
2. Average Daily Inmate Population - Fiscal Year to Date - July 1, 1984-April 30,
1985 for all county-operated adult detention facilities.
3. Includes all personnel assigned to detention division.
4. Ratio Supervising Staff to Inmate = Average daily inmate population divided by
authorized sworn detention personnel and/or correctional officer personnel.
5. Expenditure Budget:
(a) estimated expenditures for FY 1984-85, as verified by county budget
analysts.
(b) excludes medical and mental health costs for inmates
(c) excludes bailiff costs
(d) excludes building maintenance costs
(e) excludes revenue
(f) excludes costs for temporary holding facilities, e.g. , substations
(g) includes inmate transportation costs'
(h) includes program personnel costs--librarians, chaplains, recreation
specialists, inmate services coordinators, etc.
(i) includes fixed assets but not capital expenditures such as County Jail
Capital Expenditure Funds.
6. Operating Cost Per Inmate = Expenditure budget divided by average daily inmate
population.
7. Citizen Cost = Average daily population times cost per inmate divided by county
population.
8. Alameda - effective May 20, 1985, seventeen (17) new sworn personnel were
authorized for the North Oakland Jail at $760,000. These numbers are not
included in personnel or budget figures.
9. Contra Costa - budget figures include $65,000 remodeling cost at the
Rehabilitation Center and $129,000 for additional bunks at the Martinez
Detention Facility.
10. Fresno - budget figures include an estimated $10,000 for law library
improvements ordered by the court. Program personnel in Fresno are volunteers.
11. Kern - budget figures include $140,000 for repair of parking lot and roads. No
program personnel are in Sheriff's Department budget. Chaplain is only program
person assigned to detention.
12. Sacramento - the 69 persons listed under correctional personnel are Sheriff
Records Officers.
13. San Bernardino - budget, personnel, and inmate population figures do not include
the six substation holding facilities operated by the Sheriff's .Department. ,• All
program personnel in the adult detention facilities are volunteers.
14. San Joaquin budget figures include an estimate of inmate transportation costs
of $399,500.
15. '"Santa Clara - the Probation Department cost to operate the Men's Work Furlough
Facility ($1,416,000) and the average daily inmate population (250) at that
facility are included. The 27 persons listed under correctional personnel are
custody staff at the Sheriff's Women's Residential Center (9) and probation
staff (18) at the Men's Work Furlough Facility. Two additional custody
,, counselors at Work Furlough were just authorized but are not included in budget
,. . , or personnel figures.
16. Sonoma - budget''figures include .costs related to court intervention=-court
monitor' ($25,000'), consultant ($30,000), over-population ($57,000). Budget
projections estimate over a $l million increase in the next fiscal year as more
beds are .added to the system. The legal fees associated with the detention
system lawsuits,°:which will be in the millions of dollars, are not included.
17. Ventura - budget ($1,241,068), personnel (33), and average daily inmate
population (250) figures for the work furlough program-operated by the
Correctional Services Agency are included. There are 69 Sheriff Services
Technicians included in the correctional personnel figures.
z:
8
B. Staff
Types of Staff and Costs
Of the thirteen counties studied, six use sworn deputies to supervise
inmates (Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Mateo,
and San Bernardino). Three counties use correctional officers only in
detention (Sonoma, Solano, and Fresno). Four counties use a
combination of deputies and correctional officers (Kern, Riverside,
San Joaquin and Ventura). Kern County is requesting conversion to all
deputies in housing units, and San Joaquin is converting to all
correctional officers. Ventura utilizes "Sheriff Services
Technicians" who have no direct contact with inmates (which is
possible, given the facility design). Deputies I and II are used in
Alameda`, San° Bernardino, and San Mateo. Deputy I's are sworn peace
officers in Alameda and San Bernardino, but are non-sworn, limited--
duty deputies in San Mateo.
Deputies receive the highest salary of persons supervising inmates in
the thirteen counties (see Table 3). In the two counties using Deputy
I's, they receive 29 percent and 10 percent less in salary than Deputy
II's at the top step. In counties using correctional officers, they
receive 15- percent to 32 percent less than deputy sheriffs at the top
step. Some counties use, classifications other than .deputy sheriff or
correctional officer to supervise inmates. These classifications are
also paid less than deputies: sheriff records officer (21 percent
less), group supervisor (28 percent less), group counselor (27 percent
less), and senior group counselor (9 percent less).
Benefits for correctional officers and deputy sheriffs are similar in
almost all counties. This is because the most significant cost of the
benefit package is safety retirement. (Safety retirement benefits
apply,to 'employees in safety services--police and fire--on the
assumption that their effective working life is shorter because they
are exposed to greater hazard. ) Only a few counties do not grant
safety retirement to correctional officers who physically supervise
inmates (Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura).* Sonoma is now in the process
of adding their correctional officers to safety retirement. Because
of the similarities in benefits granted deputies and correctional
officers,. cost savings cannot be anticipated in this area.
The major cost in providing detention services is staff. Although
correctional officers may receive lower salaries than deputies, the
staff-to-inmate ratio is also clearly a dominant. staff cost
determinant. The four counties with the lowest cost per inmate are
*See Ames v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County (App. 5 Dist. 1983) 195 Cal. Rptr.
453, 147 C.A. 3d 906. The decision states that county correctional officers are
entitled to "safety member" status in county retirment systems, inasmuch as their
principle duties, including regular contact with minimum and medium security
prisoners with- attendant exposure to hazards and risk of injury from prisoner
contact, could be said to consist .of "active law enforcement."
9
also the four counties with the lowest staff-to-inmate ratio (San
Joaquin, Fresno, Kern, San Bernardino). Two of these counties use
correctional officers; one uses a combination, and the county with
the lowest cost per inmate uses deputy sheriffs. Of the counties with
the highest cost per inmate, two of the top three are also in the top
three with respect to. staff-to-inmate ratio (Riverside and Contra
Costa). Contra Costa uses deputies, but Riverside uses a combination
of deputies and correctional officers. The county with the highest
cost per inmate, San Mateo, uses deputies and limited-duty deputies.
Table 3: COUNITIES RANKED ACCORDING
TO OPERATIONAL COST INDICES
Ranking based on Ranking based on Ranking based on Ranking based on
Cost,; per Inmate Percent Sworn Ofcrs. Staff to Inmate' Ratio Cost per Citizen
(High to Low) (High to Low) (High to Low) (High to Low)
1 San Mateo 1 San Mateo 1 Sonoma 1 Kern
2 Contra Costa 2 Contra Costa 2 Riverside 2 Santa Clara
3 Riverside 3 Santa Clara 3 Contra Costa 3 Ventura
4 Santa.Clara 4 San Bernardino 4 Solano 4 Sacramento
5 Alameda 5 Alameda 5 Sacramento 5 San Mateo
6 Ventura 6 Sacramento 6 Ventura 6 Alameda
7 Sacramento 7 Kern 7 Alameda 7 Solano
8 Solano 8 San Joaquin 8 San Mateo 8 San Joaquin
9 Sonoma 9 Ventura 9 Santa Clara 9 Sonoma
10 San Joaquin 10. Riverside 10 San Joaquin 10 Fresno
11 Kern 11 Solano 11 San Bernardino 11 Contra Costa
12 Fresno 12.Fresno 12 Kern 12 Riverside
13 San Bernardino 13 Sonoma 13 Fresno 13. San Bernardino
The counties with the highest percentage of sworn staff in detention
are also the counties with the highest operating costs (San Mateo,
Contra Costa, and Santa Clara) with some anomalies, particularly San
Bernardino.
Advantages and Disadvantages to Particular Classifications in
Detention
.Sheriff's representatives in agencies using correctional officers
indicate that it has worked well because the majority of their
deputies do not .want to work in the jail. However, in Contra Costa
County, 60 percent of the deputies working detention request
reassignment to the jail. Deputies gain respect within the Department
for operating housing modules well. Also, the interpersonal skills
gained in detention can be used in the field on patrol and vice-versa.
Training costs are significantly less for correctional officers than
for deputies. Correctional officers are required to complete an
80-hour jail operations course within -the first year of employment and
24 hours of in-service training per year thereafter. Some counties
provide PC 832 (firearms) training to correctional officers. Deputies
10
must attend a law enforcement academy (540 hours in Contra Costa) and
take a 40-hour jail operations course. After the Academy, deputies in
Contra Costa spend 10 weeks working in the Detention Division with an
experienced officer and 12 weeks on patrol with an experienced officer
prior to an independent assignment. Correctional officers can be on
the job much sooner. However, some county staff argue that because
correctional officers are not as well trained, it is necessary to
operate with a higher officer-to-inmate and supervisor-to-officer
ratio.
At least one county (Sonoma) has had difficulty in recruiting
qualified correctional officers. Sheriff's Department representatives
say that .the.correctional officer salary level is too low to make it
worthwhile for someone to move to the area for the job, and the
existing labor pool is small. The most qualified correctional
officers have historically left- detention for patrol opportunities or
a better paying job at San Quentin. It then becomes difficult to
promote from within the remaining ranks of correctional officers.
Kern County representatives also noted that they have experienced
problems due°.to correctional officers leaving for better jobs. In
counties using both deputies and correctional officers in' detention,
the attrition rate for correctional officers is slightly higher.
Higher attrition rates could offset lower .training costs for
correctional officers.
Most persons agree„ that there is a definite need for an established
career ladder when using correctional officers. If supervisory and
promotional opportunities do not, exist, .itis difficult to attract
well qualified applicants, and the most effective officers ,leave for
better job opportunities.
A number of Sheriff's value the inherent operational versatility
associated with utilizing deputies in detention. In an emergency
situation, there is a larger reserve of manpower and a greater
flexibility of response.
11
O al O to
a 3 "
N U) i
W >1 1N N W N to U a) N 7
,Qa) 11 C Q) .0 Q) Q) U (1) a) a) O 0 O O N
E W 0 >a Y� N >+ >� N �+ >� Z Z 2 2 a
U)
J-1 W f
-4 O
w
N W N 0 dP N dP dP x
,. y C C .•� In M "o M •.i
a) a) ro dP dP df dP dP dP dP aW dP dP dP dP'dP <a dP do tIP aP ap
yJ fJ] U U) N O H O II1 M a 'V' N CO C C U1 111 V to O ri N N C
W N M M N Mm N Mm M M M Mm M M M M NM M N N 4)
KCn W N ...-._
� H •.i N {D Q
r3;' W Q y
C � W
to
Z N
H W M co N M tD LD U1µtD N.•i Q1 1n C a1 01 M l0 O U1 U1 CD .-i Ln C �
'a ri co t0 C W O C C M N to Ln to r r co M co O C v M M -
C7 a al O 1n C 41 r C r C M 61 N 1 V lD M 1n c 0z M CO OD yJ _
�+ V1 N N N H ri Nr-1 N N ri N r-1 N N N N N N ri H N ri -i
H C IQ I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I t I I t 1 I I I 1 1 y -
ul 0 P4 U1 ri U1 l0 fT .i 01 O -4 O N o 0 0 0 (D n CO' ID O N U1 N O W
M N 01 C r O'r r•I U) r N 0 O O N r to � O C M ri
�. 'V ro coCD-r-I O U1 Q' at COD 01 111 co Ul O N Q• H 01 1n tD O d' M J-1 b
i+•1 U G11 ri N N ,-i r-I ri ri r•1 H r•1 r•1 ri N N ,1 N r-1 ri ri r•1 r-1 .i .-i
a
H O
w U 0
cai
roro w
H _ ro
O , U H H H H
U aJ O Ot .� •.i C
F"1 W W W •ri W a ri W W U >
C Q) a) a) W a) 'D Q) O a) Q) a) W
O U U U w U H M. .-1 U U E a) ,4 bJ
.,j H .H -4 H •rl O •N H H '0 H C W •A -4 U)
CTa JJ H H W W H W H w HH Q a W W N. W
Fi ro. w w w N w 4J W0 G, 44 w a) 0-4 u w
Ga U ro W W w o 0 1W o w w'0 W o w W w 0 U o o w U N ro
H -.iN W W w w ww W w w w 41 1.4 a� .i44 > > O p
w •.i •.i -H H ri .1 .i •.i 0 .14r .r •.i •i -HQ)
U1 -4; W W Wm
'oW ro WW U a W W W U) > 0 It 'a W W W•r m
N El a) a) Q) C C C) C O a) Q) a) C Q) a) �- U r:,d 0 3 C C Q) 0) a)1J w yJ
m a x c o o c o .c ca c o c 0 0 c uJ aU Al lo
ro u) u) N "i .•.1U)
•r♦ U) u) u) -4u) u) H u) O O U, N •,i •'i N a a)
a H J-1 4J iJ . W 11 U - L JJ W !n W U u
V U >v >1 U U' U > >.W >1 U >. >. >+ U W C U U >. W W W
J-J 1J 4J W Cl J.J a) J.1 1J-4N J L a a) 4J 4J JC4 0 " a) Q) 1J •ri a O
a s a W W a W a a W a W a a a a 3 ,� W W a W aU
z a a N Si a a, a a s c,o-- C -- si.,. W Cl, a, 0— a) ro
Uo uo c°� c cn o coy � � �cW� u) u u° "S ul u..
U
W a o
W w w
H Ea W
Qui +'J W a ..
W •.i O w
x N aJ ro as dP
NN ro M dP dP dP M as dP dP dP dP dP� dP dp "• o
CQ U u) O r•I M r V1 01 IT co C Ln O to -4 yJ
(++
>'1 $4 M M N M M M M M M M N M M ro
u
W m
u) mro fn o
G wQfn
U)
r N >
P: M O w
a
v) as
G=1 O N N t0 l0 N 0 C 01 M N 01 co - > N .
ULD Lo r O C M 01 In r- co LD M C' )4
W N N N N N N N N N N N N N a
N I 1 1 I I I I t 1 1 1 1 1 ul
{� -i N V' r♦ O r 01 01 C \o r Ln N C
W M N' M r r -4 U1 .•1 O N, N N
Ef) . W >I H O O 01 1 01 O O N = O tT CO .,.i '
ro
P. N N N H r-1 r•i N N N N N ri ri W O C
d 0
W >
LL N 4j 4J
W H H H H H H r H H W 4.1
d+ a O H H H
•d W W W W W W W W W W W W W U pt
N yJ W W W W W W W W W W W W W y C
rl ro a) -4 •r♦ •rl -A •rr •.i -4 •.1 •.i •'i „i •.i •rl y -A
U 4J W W W W aa)) a) Q) Q) N N a) N N a Ra X
w "rl x x x a 4 x c x c 4 x x > o
E-1 .,i [1 u) to U) u) UJ U) Ul U) ul Ul u) U) U) O 3
En >, >, >, > >, >, >, >, >, > >, >, >, m a W
JJ N JJ 1J N J-1 JJ 4jJ-J >J ♦J JJ 4-j14O
ro
,•.1 a a a a a 0 0 a a a a a a ro ,J w
U a a a O, a a a a a a a a a
a) a) 0 N a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) Q) J; .H
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a u (I
a m
Ci C W
C C 0 w
ro rl $ aJ
W
.rl
W 0 �4 ..,Cj N U O
u ro U 44
H Q)N Croy u ro v 1 1n
(am
10 o m o o ro W U m i
o v W C W w h ro a E a m N -
U a aNi > T M c a [ i). a
N U) UI U) I N I to I .r N m-
12
-12
C. Operating Conditions
The detention systems in this study are all overcrowded. The counties
report a range from 10 percent over rated capacity in Alameda to 73 percent
in Kern County during the last fiscal year. (Kern County also has one of
the lowest per-inmate costs. ) Contra Costa County is 21 percent over rated
capacity. The average of all counties is 34 percent. There is no clear
pattern as to how overcrowding affects per-inmate cost. Obviously, if an
increase in the inmate population is not followed by a comparable increase
in staff, the average cost per inmate will decrease. This has happened in
Ventura County, which has switched to double bunking in all housing modules
with no increased staff. Alameda County has also received a temporary
variance to double bunk up to one-third of the cells in the North County
facility. : However,.. temporary two-year variances of this sort are granted
by the Board of Corrections with the understanding that the county will
alleviate the overcrowding problem and return the facility to the original
rated capacity. Facility configuration is related to whether particular
spaces can be safely overcrowded without an increase in .staff.
Compliance with California Minimum Jail Standards, or higher standards such
as the Amer.ican ,Correctional Association standards, reflects a county's
capability ,and effort to operate a safe jail system. Certainly unsafe
. . conditions in the jails can lead to expensive litigation. Although meeting
the requirements does ,not prevent litigation, itis basic to a strong
defense. Nine of -the thirteen counties studied have detention-related
court orders. Fresno County recently paid $350,000 to the survivors of a
deceased jail .inmate who died as a result'of a beating in an area that did
not offer adequate separation and was overcrowded. Two counties (Sonoma
and Santa Clara) are being monitored by the court. Both counties have
incurred significant legal and associated fees, and both will ultimately
experience major increases in their operating budgets for detention as new
facilities and staff are added to meet court-imposed conditions. All the
counties in this study have received State bond monies and are planning to
build new detention facilities.
Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties are the only two counties to have
American Medical Association accreditation for the inmate medical program
in their facilities. Contra Costa County is the only county in California
to .be accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. The
mission statement for the new facility- in San Joaquin includes a commitment
to meet the requirements for ACA accreditation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
There are two main determinants of staff operating costs in the detention
system: the wage paid to personnel and the number of personnel needed to
operate the system. A reduction in either or both will achieve cost savings.
There also appear to be economies in centralizing detention services.
For illustrative purposes, annual custody costs are projected for three
different levels of staffing that could be needed to operate a new 560-bed
detention facility in Contra Costa County--80 - 100 - 120 additional custody
officers. (These are hypothetical figures. A staffing study for the new
facility is still progress. ) The annual custody salary costs are projected,
13
.. using current .top step pay (no benefits included) for the three various types of
staff studied in this report:
Current Annual Salary Annual Salary Annual Salary
Top Cost of 80 Cost for 100 Cost for 120
Classification Step/Mo. Officers Officers Officers
-------------- -------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Deputy Sheriff $2,462 $2,363,520 $2,954,400 $3,545,280
(Contra Costa County)
Deputy SheriffI $2,269 $2,178,240 $2,722,800 $3,267,360
(San Bernardino)
Deputy Sheriff i . $2,013 $1,932,480 $2,415,600 $2,898,720
(Alameda)
Correctional Officer $1,905 $1,828,800 $2,286,000 . $2,743,200
(Solano--closest county to
Contra Costa geographically
using correctional officers)
Correctional Officer $1,745 $1,675,200 $2,094,000 $2,512,800
(Riverside--lowest top, . ,
step salary)
Using these pay scales, the annual salaries of Deputy Sheriff I's are 9 to 22
percent less than that for deputy sheriffs in Contra Costa,.County. Correctional
officers' annual salaries are 29 to 41 percent less.
These estimates are only for those additional custody officers that might be
needed .to open a new Contra Costa County facility and do not include any costs
or- savings ;from converting deputy sheriffs now in the detention division to some
other classification.*
The data obtained in this study indicates that use of lower paid Deputy I's or
correctional officers is workable in some counties, although other counties have
. " experienced recruitment, attrition, and competency problems. The choice between
deputies and correctional officers is obviously not neutral, or the
recommendation would clearly be for lower paid personnel. There are many
v factors to be weighed in assessing how a conversion to lower paid staff would
affect -this County:
(1) Can the necessary number,of qualified staff be recruited? The Sheriff's
Department currently has some problems in filling the available deputy
positions, given the standards established and the current .wage scale which
is below the majority of police agencies in this area.
*Alameda County estimated a $3 million savings over the first five years from hiring
80.,new deputies. at the Deputy I level and from departmental attrition for five years
at ,five percent per year.
14
(2) Can lower paid staff provide the quality of detention services required in
the direct supervision facilities this County operates? How would this
staff be integrated with existing staff?
(3') Would .the safety 'of Contra Costa County citizens be jeopardized by reducing
the manpower reserve for emergencies?
(4) Is pay parity. for deputies and correctional officers a possibility, thereby
negating continuous long-term savings? The National Institute of
Corrections is recommending such parity. There is also currently a bill in
the Legislature (SB 1373) which declares that recommendations for the
salaries of correctional peace officers employed by the Department of
Corrections and the Department of the Youth Authority shall be based on the
estimated. average salaries as of July 1 of the year in .which
recommendations are made for each corresponding rank for the police
departments of the Cities of Berkeley, Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Oakland, Pasadena, Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Monica, and San Francisco
and the Sheriff's Department of Alameda County.
(5) Will there be "hidden" costs associated with a switch to non-sworn
personnel? Use of another classification in detention to perform certain
functions can lead to" increased, rather than decreased, costs. For
example, if deputies now doing booking are replaced with clerks; deputies
will still be 'required to provide supervision of inmates while in the
booking area. This would- lead to an increase in staff and cost because
deputies now provide both clerical and supervision functions in booking.
' The Sheriff regularly assigns deputies on light duty to some non-custody
functions, such as staffing the Work Alternative Project. If these
deputies are replaced by civilians, they might have to remain off duty
(with full salary). Also; the classification needed to perform work now
being done by"deputies in some other non-custody functions, e.g. , Bureau of
Administrative Services, may be more expensive than the deputy, e.g. ,
management analyst.
The options for consideration that arise from this study follow. The options
are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
(0 - Maintain status. quo. Use deputy sheriffs for all custody duties and
civilians for program and business/clerical functions.
(2) Develop two or more classifications for the deputy sheriff position. One
classification would be responsible for custody functions at a lower
salary, and one classification would be qualified for patrol.
(3) Develop a non-sworn correctional officer classification:
a. for all detention functions - would need to convert 170 existing
sworn detention personnel and hire whatever added positions are
required for the new facility;
b. for limited detention functions, e.g. , with no innmate contact (like
Ventura's Sheriff Services Technician position) or limited inmate
contact (depending on security level). Deputies could continue being
15
used at the MDF to supervise the maximum security prisoners and
deputies, and correctional officers could be used at the new facility.
The new facility will house minimum and medium security prisoners--the
majority of whom will be sentenced.
(4) Maintain current deputy sheriff classification but increase the use of
non-sworn persons in various roles in the detention division:,
a. . group counselors at Work Furlough - could convert existing sworn staff
at Work Furlough (16) to non-sworn staff with one supervising custody
person.
b. group counselors at drunk driving sentenced facility (if developed) -
If Rehabilitation Center were converted to sentenced drunk driving
facility when new jail is operational and held 100 or more prisoners,
it could be operated with one custody person and alcohol counselors.
c. group counselors to staff the Work Alternative Project.
4
16
Alameda County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Alameda County Sheriff's Department operates all County detention
facilities: separate female and male work furlough facilities, the North County
Jail (opened in 1984 for male and female pretrial inmates) and the Santa Rita
complex made up of three facilities for both pretrial and sentenced prisoners.
The Sheriff also operates a "work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced
prisoners-
2.
risoners-2. Staff
Sworn peace officers supervise inmates in all County -facilities. In: May 1984,.
the County began implementing Deputy I and II classifications. Personnel in the
Deputy I position start work in the jail system and are paid 17-29 percent less
than the Deputy II category. A Deputy I can move to Deputy II after 23 months
service and successful completion of a performance evaluation. Deputies remain
in the detention system, on the average, four years before assignment to patrol.
Deputies ,have•direct contact with inmates at the work furlough facilities and
Santa Rita and, to a more limited extent, at the new North County Jail. Housing
modules are supervised by a deputy in a control room, and other deputies rove
between hoesing modules. -
The new Deputy I classification was established at the time the Board of
Supervisors was considering the need for additional staffing to operate the
North County Jail. . The Board agreed to a certain number of positions based on a
dower starting pay. It was estimated that the County would save $3 million over
. the first five years by hiring 80 new deputies at the Deputy I pay level and
from departmental attrition for five years at five percent per year. Ongoing
savings from attrition after the initial five years was estimated at $545,574
per year.
Alameda County has only had a year's experience with the new classification.
They have filled all authorized slots, and Sheriff's Department staff are
satisfied with the quality of recruits. The department has had some recruiting
problems because the starting pay is $1,825/month, and the nearby City of
Berkeley's, starting pay for a police officer is $2,350/month. It is anticipated,
that some deputies will ultimately leave for better paying jobs in other local
law enforcement agencies. The current attrition rate for Deputy Sheriff II
personnel is b.5 percent.
3. Operating Conditions
Because of systemwide overcrowding, the Sheriff has been granted a temporary
variance to operate the North County facility at a capacity of 778 persons. At
this capacity, up to one-third of the cells are double-bunked. The County is
currently in the process of replacing the Santa Rita Facility with a new
1,512-bed facility at the same site. In August 1983, the Superior Court, in
Smith vs. Dyer, issued an order affecting the Greystone Facility at Santa Rita
which required (1) inmates not sleeping on floors except in emergencies; (2)
prompt •replacement of broken toilets, showers, and sinks; (3) immediate
improvement and repair of the electrical system, heating units, steam lines,
1
Alameda County Appendix l: Survey'
Results
roof, and wire mesh over cells; and (4) several administrative modifications.
In addition, the court ordered Greystone to be effectively closed on or before
January 1, 1986.
2
Contra Costa County Appendix. l: Survey
Results
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff-Coroner operates three detention facilities, all staffed by sworn
deputies: the maximum security Martinez Detention Facility for pretrial and
sentenced male and female inmates, a minimum security Rehabilitation Center for
sentenced males with a branch jail for medium security male pretrial inmates,
and a work furlough facility for minimum security sentenced males and females.
The Sheriff operates a "work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced inmates.
All facilities employ direct supervision of inmates by deputies.
2. Staff
The Sheriff supports use of deputy sheriffs in all the facilities because the
high recruitment and training standards provide the level of competence required
to directly supervise inmates. Deputy sheriffs also provide a reserve of peace
officers that can be quickly called out in time of emergency.
Deputies in Contra Costa County view working detention as part of their
professional responsibilities, and 60 percent of the detention officers
requested repeat assignments to, detention. The attrition rate for deputy
sheriffs 'in Contra Costa,County is 6.5 percent per year.
3. Operating Conditions
The Martinez Detention Facility and the Work Furlough Center are model
facilities. '' The .California Board of Corrections and the National Institute of
Corrections train detention and corrections professionals from the State. and
nation in the planning, design, and operation of new-generation jails at these
two facilities.
Contra Costa County facilities suffer the same overcrowding problems occurring
in the other counties in this study. However, with the exception of current
overcrowding in the housing modules at the Martinez Detention Facility, the
County fully complies with all Minimum Jail Standards. The Sheriff recently
signed: a. Superior :Court consent decree related to general conditions at the
Martinez Detention Facility.
3
i
Fresno County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
FRESNO COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff's Department operates a main jail for sentenced and pretrial male
and female prisoners and a branch jail for sentenced, male and female, minimum
custody prisoners. The Sheriff provides custody for work furloughees and a
"work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced inmates.
2. Staff
With the exception of one sworn officer, Fresno County relies entirely on
correctional officers to operate the' detention division. Staff supervision is
by non-sworn correctional sergeants and lieutenants. Correctional officers
. provide intra-county transportaion of prisoners; sworn deputies are used to
provide all out-of-county prisoner transportation. Officers have direct contact
with inmates in the minimum security facility only.
The fringe benefit package is similar for deputies and correctional officers.
Correctional officers originally were not included in safety retirement, but
through successful litigation, are now members.
Fresno County representatives think that the cost savings from using
correctional officers occurs only at entry level. Most correctional officers
remain on the job, and a Correctional Officer III is ,paid more than an entry
level deputy. The advantage of using correctional officers, they believe, is
.the establishment of a rank of correctional professionals who know they will
always be working detention. There are incentives to become knowledgeable
regarding detention policies and procedures.
3. Operating Conditions
In January 1983, the Fresno County Superior Court ordered numerous changes in
the County's detention practices. In November 1983, a Fresno County jury
awarded $350,000 to the survivors of a deceased jail inmate. The death occurred
as the result of injuries suffered after a beating by another prisoner in a
pre-booking holding area that did not offer adequate separation of prisoners and
was overcrowded.
4
Kern County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
KERN COUNTY
1. Facilities_
Kern County currently employs deputy sheriffs to supervise inmates at the main
jail (which houses mostly pretrial male and female inmates) and at the
medium/maximum security facility at Lerdo (for pretrial and sentenced male
prisoners). There is also a minimum security facility for men at Lerdo and a
minimum security unit for women, constructed in response to a suit filed on
behalf of equal programs and services for females. The County operates a work
alternative program but does not provide a work furlough program.
2. Staff
Correctional officers are employed to supervise the minimum security units at
Lerdo. There is direct contact between inmate and correctional officer in
minimum security units. Correctional Officer I's provide inmate supervision.
Correctional Officer II's and III's are used in' staff supervisory positions. A
sworn sergeant serves as the minimum security facility commander. Cooks, auto
mechanics,", and maintenance workers are also correctional officers in Kern
County. The personnel in .these classifications provide inmate supervision and
are'members of safety retirement.
Correctional officers transport minimum security inmates for work crews and to
the hospital when-.needed.
The Sheriff has requested conversion from correctional officers to deputy
sheriffs for those positions assigned to provide security in minimum security
housing. Correctional officers would continue to supervise crews working out of
the. facility on County work projects. The additional budget request for
conversion is $200,880 and will cover the same number of staff positions. The
request has not .as yet been acted upon.
Correctional officers and deputies have benefit parity, although correctional
officers have a lower salary scale.
The conversion: request. was prompted by several factors. Personnel in the
correctional officer classification are expected to perform many duties which
are similar to those assigned to deputy sheriffs. Hiring standards for
correctional officers, however, are lower. The Sheriff thinks that because of
this lower standard, many of the persons hired for the correctional officer
positions are not competent to perform expected duties, particularly the
supervision.of inmates and writing of reports. Also, because correctional
officers are not qualified to carry firearms, they cannot be used in emergency
situations. In 1983, there was an inmate riot at the minimum security facility,
and it -was nearly destroyed before sworn personnel could arrive to quell the
disturbance. The Sheriff's Department staff also indicate the best correctional
officers leave for higher paying positions.
If the. conversion request is approved, current correctional officers will be
allowed to take the test for deputy sheriff positions. Officers not able to
5
Kern County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
pass the test will. be. allowed to remain, and their positions will be converted
to' the deputy sheriff category as they leave.
3. Operating Conditions
Serious overcrowding continues in Kern County, with inmates sleeping on the
floor and in space designed for programs. Plans are moving forward to construct
more housing at the Lerdo site.
6
Riverside County Appendix l: Survey
Results
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff operates five facilities which detain persons for more than 24
hours. The Main, Blythe, and Indio jails hold male and female pretrial and
sentenced persons. The Banning Jail holds pretrial male and female prisoners,
and the Banning Rehabilitation Center holds sentenced men. The Sheriff operates
a work furlough and "work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced men and women.
2. Staff
Riverside County uses both deputy sheriffs and correctional officers to
supervise inmates. The classification of correctional officer includes three
steps, each with different functions:
Correctional Officer I (15 positions) - responsibilities are basically clerical,
e.g. , intake, business office, runners.
Correctional Officer II (94 positions) - provides all inmate supervision at the
sentenced minimum security facility under the command of a sworn lieutenant.
Staff have direct contact with inmates at this facility. Correctional Officer .
II's also work in the business office and provide court and out-of-county
transportation. Other duties include providing general security at the county
hospital and supervision in the security unit at the hospital.
Correctional Officer III (34 positions) - responsible for supervision of
in-custody work crews;: and at the Main Jail, CO III's operate the commissary and
fill the procurement officer position. , Correctional Officer III's staff the ,
Type I jail in Riverside and will staff the two additional Type I jails that are
going to be opened.
There are also Supervising Correctional Officers who supervise correctional
officers and/or deputy sheriffs. In some cases, correctional officers supervise
higher-paid deputies in the jail facilities.
Deputies assigned, to. detention are primarily responsible for inmate supervision
at the maximum security main Jail and the jails at Indio and Blythe. Deputies
have direct contact with inmates. Deputies also staff booking and release
functions., Correctional officers provide support services at these
facilities--transportation, food service, clerical, laundry. In an emergency
situation, correctional officers are put on overtime, and sworn staff are
assigned to.the field.
Sheriff's Department representatives .think. this organizational scheme provides
stability in the detention system. Correctional officers provide career staff
for the jails. A career ladder was established for correctional officers to
upgrade the caliber of personnel. In September 1982, the Correctional Officer
III step was created and, at the top step, is comparable in pay to a starting
deputy sheriff. There is still a wide gap in salary between starting
correctional officers and deputies.
7
Riverside County Appendix l: Survey
Results
Two and a half. .years ago, correctional officers in Riverside became part of
safety. retirement. The attrition rate for deputies is about 3.7 percent and for
correctional officers, approximately 11 percent.
3. Operating.Conditions
The County is involved in a building program and will continue to face heavy
overcrowding pressures until new beds. are available.
County facilities are in compliance with Minimum Jail Standards except for
overcrowding and some space inadequacies in the main jail. Due to legal action,
there is a population cap at the Indio substation, and no prisoners may sleep on
the floor at the main jail. The Sheriff has had to triple-bunk several areas in
response to the order.
8
Sacramento County. Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff runs the main jail for pretrial prisoners and a coed work furlough
facility in •Sacramento, and a complex of facilities at the Rio Cosumnes
Correctional Center in Elk Grove. This complex includes minimum to maximum
security units for sentenced men and a women's facility. The Sheriff also
operates a "work in lieu of jail" program.
2. Staff
Deputy sheriffs provide the inmate supervision in all County detention
facilities. However, there is a Sheriff's Record Officer (SRO) classification
that provides some supervision of inmates in minimum security units only. SRO's
working at the branch jail supervise clothing and property, perform accounting
functions, and handle the commissary, laundry, and purchasing. At the .main
jail, SRO's do not have direct contact with inmates but perform the following
activities: . booking, writing medical reports, clothing and property, cashier,
fiscal, commissary, librarian: SRO's constitute approximately 19 percent of the
total detention staff. Except for a smaller educational incentive, SRO's
receive the same benefits as 'deputies. SRO's ate members of safety retirement.
The Sheriff recently circulated a memorandum regarding use of correctional
officers vs. deputy sheriffs (December 4, 1984) in which it was indicated that
no correctional class will be established in the foreseeable future. The
decision was based on the following:
1) Use of correctional officers would not move deputies presently assigned .to
jail. duties to field services any faster.
2) Promotional opportunities would be restricted. Qualified deputies might
have a ten-year wait to take the test for sergeant.
3) When considering total personnel costs, including salaries, recruitment,
training, personnel turnover, injury costs, etc. , use of correctional
officers,will not constitute_a significant savings.
4) Deputies provide a high quality of service in the jails and there is no
evidence to suggest that the use of correctional officers would improve
performance.
3. Operating Conditions
Sacramento County is constructing a new 1,000-bed main jail to replace an
existing 431-bed structure that must be replaced pursuant to a settlement
agreement. Due to overcrowding and unavailable program space, the main jail
does not comply with some Minimum Jail Standards. A class action suit brought
regarding overcrowding and lack of adequate fire protection and medical care was
settled by consent decree in September 1981. The medical programs at the main
jail and the branch jail are now certified by the American Medical Association.
9
San Bernardino. County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff operates two major facilities in this County. The main jail in San
Bernardino holds sentenced and unsentenced male and female prisoners., The Glen
Helen maximum and minimum security facility holds sentenced male prisoners. In
addition, the Sheriff runs six substations primarily for pretrial holding, each
having an assigned.work force of sentenced prisoners.
There are no work furlough programs operating in the County. The Sheriff does
provide a "work in. lieu. of jail" program for sentenced inmates.
2. Staff
San Bernardino, like Alameda County, has a Deputy I and Deputy II
classification. Deputy I's are assigned to detention; they serve as bailiffs
and supervise inmates in the jail facilities. Deputy I's are sworn peace
officers and are eligible to take the exam for Deputy II after one year. A
Deputy I can only- be promoted if there is a vacant position. Deputy II's have
more supervisory,responsibilities and work both detention and patrol.
The Deputy I classification was implemented 18 months ago. The Board of
Supervisors told ,the Sheriff that any savings realized from filling Deputy II
positions with Deputy I's could be used to increase the number of Deputy II's in
the field. The Sheriff has increased the number of new field deputies by 48.
In:. detention, about half the positions are currently filled by Deputy I's.
;.Deputy I's receive a lower salary, but the two classifications receive the same
benefits.
Custody-personnel are separated from inmates in all facilities except in the
sentenced °minimum security housing units where there is direct contact. The
attrition rate for sworn personnel in the Sheriff's Department is about three
percent per year.
;3.
Operating- Conditions.
No significant litigation has- been reported, and all detention facilities are in
basic compliance with Minimum Jail Standards, with some physical plant
exceptions,.in the main jail.
10
San_ Joaquin County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
1. Facilities
There are three separate facilities operated by the Sheriff at French Camp--the
men's jail for pretrial and maximum security inmates, a pretrial and sentenced
woemen's facility, and the minimum security honor farm for males only. A work
furlough program is available at French Camp for men and women. The Sheriff
also operates a.,"work in lieu of jail" program.
2. Staff
San Joaquin County began utilizing some correctional officers to supervise
inmates in 1978 (they were called Institutional Support Officers). The County
is now in the process of switching entirely to correctional officers in the
jails. Deputy sheriff positions are being filled by correctional officers as
they become available. Deputies riot qualified for the field will remain in
detention (about three to eight percent). Deputies remain in the jails, on the
average,, over three years before positions become available in the field. There
are no.•differences in the functions performed by deputies and correctional
officers in the. jails, although correctional officers do not transport inmates.
There are, fixed .posts, and both classifications rotate through the detention
system. Both classifications are supervised by sworn sergeants. Currently, no
career ladder exists for correctional officers; however, there is a desire to
establish a correctional sergeant classification in the future.
The .Retirement Board in San ,Joaquin recently voted safety member retirement to
correctional. officers. Correctional officers have' approached both the Deputy
Sheriffs' Association and the Employees' Association of San Joaquin County,
requesting representation .in their bid to receive equal pay with deputy sheriffs
for equal work. A recent Board of Supervisors-sponsored citizen study of the
entire corrections system recommended pay parity for correctional officers and
deputies. County representatives expect the pay gap to at least be narrowed in
the next negotiations.
The attrition rate for deputies in 1983 was two percent, and in 1984 it was four
percent.. . .The:.,attrition rate for correctional officers for those same years was
five percent and 22 percent, respectively.
3i� Operating Conditions
The County received $1 million' in State .bond money to construct a prisoner
health care housing unit. The County is engaged in a major planning effort to
decide the need for future expansion of bed capacity. No litigation has been
reported, and the facilities are in compliance except for overcrowding in some
housing units and the need for a safety .cell and a public information plan.
Although the County facilities are not certified by the ACA or AMA, the mission
statement for future facilities includes meeting ACA standards.
11
San .Mateo County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SAN MATEO COUNTY
1. Facilities
Five facilities are operated by the Sheriff in San Mateo County, including a
Main Jail (men only), a Women's Correctional Center (including work furlough),
and a Men's Work Furlough facility--all located in Redwood City. There is a
Correctional Center in _La Honda for minimum security and medium security
inmates, and a North County (Type I) facility. The Sheriff also provides a
"work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced prisoners.
2. Staff
San Mateo operates three of the five facilities using Deputy I and II's.
However, the Deputy I classification in San Mateo is a "limited-duty peace
officer", not the same sworn peace officer classification used in Alameda and
San Bernardino. Limited-duty peace officers are basically correctional
officers, but they receive PC 832 training in firearms. Limited-duty peace
officers do not attend the Law Enforcement Academy but have peace officer powers
while working in the jail. The .Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission
(POST) has recently eliminated the "limited- duty peace officer" classification,
effective-July-1, 1985.
In the three facilities where Deputy I and II's work side by side (Main Jail,
Women's Correctional Center, and North County), there are no differences in
functions-performed. Both work regular custody in maximum and medium security
units and have direct contact with inmates. Deputy I's do not work at the Men's
Work Furlough facility.or the Correctional Center. The division 'of
responsibilities between Deputy I's and II's is a labor issue. Deputy II's want
to limit the areas of work eligible for Deputy I assignment. The rationale for
not having Deputy I's work in the rehabilitation programs is that they do not
have adequate training to provide counseling to inmates. Deputy II's also work
patrol.
Deputy I can be promoted to Deputy II through an examination after one year.
,..(Deputy I and II are flexible classifications, so there are no fixed numbers in
either classification, only an overall authorized total. ) There are currently
39 Deputy I'*s out of a total 141 authorized custody personnel. About 50 percent
of the Deputy Vs who pass the exam for Deputy II and go to the Academy fail the
Field Training Officer Program and return to the Deputy I class.
This particular organizational scheme has been in operation for five years.
There are several advantages cited by Sheriff's Department staff. The more
Deputy I's there are, the fewer Deputy II's have to remain in detention, which
is viewed as positive by Deputy II's. It is also an excellent approach to
recruit and train minority and female applicants. There is a less strenuous
physical exam for Deputy I, and the year required before applying for Deputy II
provides excellent on-the-job preparation for the Academy.
There is about a five .percent turnover rate for both Deputy I and Deputy II.
12
San Mateo County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
3. Operating Conditions -
San Mateo County recently opened the women's facility (1980) and the North
County Correctional Facility (1983). Despite significant construction, the
increase of prisoners has outpaced the effort. San Mateo will receive $8
million of State bond money for the construction of additional beds. The County
is not involved in any detention system litigation, and the jails are in
compliance with Minimum Jail Standards except for the following: overcrowding,
no infirmary (main jail), needed staff at Men's Work Furlough, segregation of
mentally disturbed, needed medical prescreening (Women's Correctional Facility),
and inadequate audio-visual monitoring (Men's Correctional Facility).
13
Santa Clara County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff operates detention facilities in three areas within the County. The
main jail in San Jose, which holds pretrial men, has been a focal point of a
conditions-of-confinement suit. A special monitor has been appointed by the
court. A second major complex is at Elmwood: the men's facility is utilized
for pretrial and sentenced inmates at maximum (due to overcrowding at the main
jail)., medium, and minimum security levels; the women's facility holds pretrial
and sentenced women. . The women's facility is under the supervision of the.
Federal .District.Court. The North County Jail in Palo Alto holds pretrial and
sentenced male and female prisoners.
The Women's Residential Center in San Jose is located in a former apartment
building and houses up to 28 minimum security women on work furlough or on
trusty status who may live there with their children.
The Sheriff also operates a "work in lieu of jail" program for sentenced
inmates.
Last year, the County opened a 250-bed work furlough facility for men, operated
by 'the Probation Department.
2. Staff
All Sheriff's Department facilities have deputy sheriffs supervising inmates
with the exception of the Women's Residential Center. A. sergeant is the Women's
Residential Center commander, and Group Counselor II's (who work for the
Sheriff) provide custody services. Group Counselor II's can work without
supervision. Deputies working in detention receive five percent more pay than
deputies in patrol.
Deputies have direct contact with inmates in some, but not all, facilities.
Six years ago, the County began phasing out a Deputy I classification. Deputy
I's were correctional officers rather than peace officers, and they staffed the
minimum security facility. They had no career ladder. The newly-elected
Sheriff wanted the versatility provided by having peace officers in detention
and the field. At that time, Deputy I's were allowed to waive the test for
peace officer and attend the Academy for promotion to Deputy Sheriff.
The attrition rate for sworn staff in Santa Clara County is eight percent per
year.
3. Operating Conditions
In a major court case, the County has been placed under a court order that
limits the main jail population and establishes a timetable to develop
.additional prisoner housing. To reduce crowding, the court has ordered the
release of prisoners prior to the expiration of their sentences and has ordered
14
Santa Clara County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
the construction of several interim housing units at Elmwood. The County is in
the process of completing construction documents for a proposed new jail.
A recent study indicated that the County had relied primarily on alternatives to
• incarceration to manage a growing jail population. These programs managed to
absorb the normal increases in inmate population but were not able to impact an
increasing crime rate.
The main jail, the facilities at Elmwood, the North County Jail, and the Women's
Residential Center are not in compliance with a number of Minimum Jail
Standards.-
15
Solano County Appendix 1: 'Survey
Results
SOLANO COUNTY
1. Facilities .
The main jail in Fairfield houses male and female pretrial prisoners and
overflow or management problem sentenced prisoners. The Claybank facility
houses sentenced males ,and females. The third facility is the Branch Jail in
Vallejo for pretrial and sentenced men. The facilities, which include work
furlough programs for men and women, are all managed by the Sheriff's
Department. A "work in lieu of jail" program is also run by the Sheriff.
2. Staff
Correctional officers provide all detention staffing with the exception of
supervising sworn sergeants and lieutenants. Correctional officers currently
supervise the graveyard shift and will replace supervising sergeants on the day
shift in the future facilities. Correctional officers have direct contact with
inmates and provide supervision at booking.
Solano County. staffed the jails with correctional officers- eight years ago in an
effort to reduce salary costs and as a method to free sworn personnel for
patrol.
The attrition rate for deputy sheriff is usually two percent per year; but in
1984-85, it was six to eight percent. The rate for correctional officers is
. , eight percent per year.
3. Operating Conditions
Solano County is planning a new detention facility with funds awarded from State
bond monies. In July 1982, the County entered into a stipulated agreement with
the Federal Court to provide inmates with an adequate legal access program.
There are several physical plant inadequacies, based on Minumum Jail Standards,
in Solano County facilities and several health program and facility needs.
16
Sonoma County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
SONOMA COUNTY
1. Facilities
The Sheriff operates the main jail in Santa Rosa for all pretrial men and women
and some sentenced prisoners and the honor farm for sentenced males classified
for minimum security. Plans are underway to add beds for both male and female
inmates at the present honor farm site.
The work furlough program for men and women operates from the honor farm site.
The Sheriff provides custody for work furloughees, but the Probation Department
supervises work furloughees while out of custody. The Sheriff does not operate
a "work in lieu of jail" program.
2'. Staff
Correctional officers provide all custody functions in the County facilities.
There is one sworn captain and one sworn lieutenant in the detention division.
Correctional .Officer. III's and non-sworn sergeants and lieutenants supervise the
correctional officers. The County has recently started operating two direct
supervision :housing units modeled after the Contra Costa County Martinez
Detention .Facility, using Correctional Officer II's. Correctional officers book
inmates but do not provide out-of-facility transportation.
Two advantages to using correctional officers mentioned by Sonoma County staff
were: 1) the ability. to focus training on one function, and 2) the fact that
training costs, are much less for correctional officers than for deputy sheriffs.
Correctional officer salaries in Sonoma County have been increasing at a faster
rate than deputy salaries since 1981. Difficulty in recruiting even minimally
qualified correctional officers led to the wage increases. According to
Sheriff's Department representatives, very few new applicants appear on the
recruitment list, and the most effective officers leave for other positions.
Also, very few officers are suitable for promotion. The County is initiating a
study regarding the use of deputy sheriffs rather than correctional officers in
detention.
Wage increases and the opening of career ladder opportunities for correctional
officers may have led to a drop in the attrition rate in the last two years from
20-60.percent to 10-12 percent.
Although correctional officers are not eligible for safety retirement, the
County Counsel has indicated the duties they perform entitle them to safety
retirement. An issue still to be resolved is whether these retirement benefits
will be retroactive.
3. Operating Conditions
As the jail population has increased in Sonoma County, more attention has been
focused on the detention system. The County continues to be monitored by the
Federal District Court through a court monitor as a result of a class action
suit settled in 1982.
z
17
Ventura County Appendix 1: Survey
Results
VENTURA COUNTY
1. Facilities
The County has two systems of adult detention and corrections. The Sheriff
operates four facilities consisting of: the Pretrial/Main Jail for males in
Ventura, an honor farm for all women and minimum security men, a medium security
facility for sentenced males, and the East Valley Holding Facility (Type I).
The Corrections. Services Agency began operating a 285-bed facility for both male
and female work furlough inmates and weekenders in July 1976. The Board of
Supervisors thought this was a more appropriate agency to run rehabilitation
programs: Program participants in this facility are supervised by group
supervisors. Senior Group Supervisors provide first-line supervision. Group
supervisors are not members of safety retirement.
2. Staff
In the Sheriff' s facilities_, visual surveillance of inmates is provided by
_ Sheriff Services. Technicians (SST). At the Main Jail, the. SST's remain in
control pods. and also work in areas such as the commissary. At the honor farm,
SST's provide visual supervision of inmates -in the kitchen and laundry. SST's
have no direct contact with inmates and are not members of safety retirement.
Deputy sheriffs perform physical supervision, searches, transportation,
escorting,-.and counseling at all facilities. SST's and deputies are supervised
by senior deputies and sergeants.
Ventura' County used correctional officers prior to 1977 when the County changed
to the more limited classification of SST. At the time, correctional officers
carried out the same functions as deputies in detention and were members of
safety retirement. Correctional officers were organizing to achieve pay parity
and a career ladder. The County elected to switch to the less expensive SST
category, which County representatives think allows the maximum use of sworn
staff.
_ The attrition rate is low for both deputy sheriffs who work in the jails (3.5-4
percent) and SST's (2 percent).
3. Operating Conditions
Ventura County; like Contra Costa County, has made strong efforts to address its
detention system needs using County resources. The facilities are in good
condition, although seriously overcrowded. The County applied for and received
a temporary variance to double bunk up to half of the Pretrial/Main Jail
population. Continuing jail population pressures have resulted in court orders
to provide additional bunks in the remaining cells. County facilities are in
compliance with Minimum Jail Standard except for overcrowding.
18
Appendix 2: Detention
Staffing Survey
COUNTY
Person Contacted Phone No.
Person Contacted Phone No.
Person Contacted Phone No.
A. Staff
1. What government department has responsibility for detention facilities?
If more than one department, specify additional department(s) and specify type of
facility and/or prisoner for which each .department is responsible.
2. what classification(s) of staff supervises inmates?
If more than one classification, please specify differences in type of facility
and/or inmate and/or. fun.ction between the classifications:
3. Are persons who supervise inmates:
full-time sworn .peace officers
correctional officers
peace officers and correctional officers
something else, please describe:
4. What classification supervises the classification that supervises inmates?
Classification
Sworn
Non-Sworn
Both
5. Does your custodial class have direct contact with inmates in any of your
detention facilities?
YES NO
If yes, in what facilities:
If yes, and if you use correctional officers or other classification besides peace
officer, does the classification have direct contact with inmates in any facility?
YES NO
1
Appendix 2: Detention
Staffing`Survey
6. What are main advantages/disadvantages to using correctional officers rather than
sworn deputies for specified functions?
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
7. What are main advantages/disadvantages to using deputy sheriffs rather than
correctional officers for specified functions?
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
8. Pay range for Deputy Sheriff (see Series No. 432 Deputy Sheriff for comparable
classification) .
Range (per month)
Pay range for. personnel classification supervising inmates if different from above.
Range (per month)
Deputy Sheriff (other than above)
Correctional Officer
Other, e.g. , Probation Officer
9. What does county have to pay in benefits to deputy sheriff (_o of salary) ?
What does county have to pay in benefits to correctional officer (o of_.salary) ?
Are correctional officers or other classification supervising inmates, if used,
members of a safety retirement plan?
YES NO
10. What career advancement exists for classification supervising inmates?
2
Appendix 2: Detention
Staffing Survey
11. If used, have correctional officers sought wage and benefit parity with deputy
sheriffs?
YES NO
If yes, what has the result been?
12. If classification supervising inmates also works patrol, do officers in jail
receive additional pay?
YES NO
If yes, percent of salary:
13., Has'.your.: county. changed in recent years from one classification to another for '
supervision of inmates?
YES NO
If yes, please describe reasons for change:
14. What is the attrition. rate for deputy sheriff (see Series No. 432) ?
15. What is. the attrition rate in the classification supervising inmates if different
from above?
16. What bargaining unit represents the classification(s) supervising inmates? If
more thanone classification, specify unit for each.
(1)
(2)
B. County Inmate and Personnel Statistics
1. County population
2. Average Daily Detention System Population
3. Authorized total personnel
4. Authorized total sworn personnel
5. Authorized total detention personnel
6. Authorized total sworn detention personnel
7. Authorized correctional officer detention personnel
3
Appendix 2: Detention
Staffing" Survey
C. Budget Summary
1. Detention,expenditures FY 1984/85:
2. Does detention budget include bailiffs? Yes
No
If yes,
(a) Number of positions
(b) Sworn or correctional officers? (circle)
(c) Cost of bailiffs
3. Does detention budget include medical and mental health costs, including
hospitalization? yes
No
5. Has revenue generated by Sheriff's Department been subtracted from detention
expenditures for FY 1984/85? Yes
No
If yes, what is total amount of revenue subtracted?
6. Are inmate transportation personnel and operating costs included in
detention budget? yes
No
If no, what budget includes inmate transportation?
7. Are staff and costs for maintaining your detention facilities (e.g. , carpenters,
custodians, painters) included in your detention budget?
Yes
No
If no, what budget includes these costs?
8. Are program personnel (librarian, chaplain,, training personnel) included in
detention budget? yes
No
9, Does detention budget include fixed assets? Yes
No
If no, what is cost?
20. Are there any large one-time costs or other major costs (e.g. , construction)
included in your FY 1984/85 expenditures that would not ordinarily be included?
Yes
No
If yes, please specify
4
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
To: SUPERVISOR TOM POWERS , Date: October 8, 1985
SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON
AN \
From: GF� R, Di ctor Subject: DETENTION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY
fustic System Programs
The Board Order of July 19, 1985 referred the Detention Staffing Analysis
Study done by this Office to the Internal Operations Committee. The report
has been circulated to interested individuals and organizations. This
Office has received responses from the Sheriff-Coroner; the Deputy
Sheriff's Association; Public Employees Union, Local One; the Contra Costa
County Taxpayers' Association and the Correctional and Detention Services
Advisory Commission.
This memorandum summarizes the responses received and outlines again the
options under consideration for detention staffing. Attached to this
memorandum are the full responses.
I. Summary of Responses
A. Contra Costa County Taxpayers' Association
The Executive Committee was "impressed with the depth of the
study" but concluded that further study should be made of the
"profound implications of changing the staffing formula" from
sworn deputy sheriffs.
B. Public Emplovees Union, Local One
Recommends instituting "Correctional Officer" position to reduce
detention facility costs. The cost savings can be converted into
programs which will keep-people from being institutionalized.
Deputy sheriffs should be replaced through attrition by
correctional officers and a promotion program for correctional
officers should be established. .
According to Local One, the differences in annual costs between
our County and Solano County (which uses correctional officers
only) show that for an 80-person staff, there would be savings of
$534,720; for a 100-person staff, there would be savings of
$668,400; and for a 120-person staff, there would be savings of
$802,080. Replacing deputies with correctional officers, the
County can effect annual savings ranging from $934,320 to
$1,136,280 (170 officers x 12 months x $458/$557 per month).
Internal Operations Committee 2 October 8, '1985- '
C. Correctional and Detentional Services Advisory Commission
CADSAC believes detention facilities should be staffed with
deputy sheriffs in areas where there is direct inmate contact,
such as all the housing modules; and that County must pay a
competitive wage to detention officers equal to what other law
enforcement officers command. The Commission sees no advantage
to changing a staffing system that works so well.
D. Sheriff-Coroner
The Sheriff, stressing the importance of this issue to the
County, submitted a report covering a number of topics:
1. despite present overcrowding, the nation considers this
County the model for design and operation of future jails
2. every dollar spent on training deputies will return major
dividends; have seen ill effects of inadequate hiring,
training and retention program upon cost and quality of
service provided to public
3. current system uses deputy sheriffs only to supervise
inmates and civilians for other functions
4. there is 18.47 turnover rate among correctional officers at
State level
5. Sonoma County Sheriff is recommending replacing correctional
officers with deputies because of serious recruitment
problems that have left them with 40 vacancies, low hiring
standards for correctional officers resulting in.complaints
involving drug use, thefts, brutality
6. the current deputy sheriff salary is adequate compensation
for supervising detention system with concentration of
felons
7. if correctional officers implemented, must demand new
program for proposed detention facility with much higher
level of security hardware and construction
8. this County will have earthquakes, mass demonstrations,
spills of toxic waste and riots; Board needs to consider
significant negative consequences to .public order if cannot
utilize 100+ off-duty personnel in an emergency because they
are correctional officers.
E. . . Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Emphasizes that the supposed fiscal savings of replacing deputies
with correctional officers are totally undermined by the current
case law concerning "safety retirement". The County would be
Internal Operations Committee . October 8, 1985
A3.
required to include. correctional. officers in safety retirement
currently applicable to sworn deputy sheriffs.
Under Contra Costa County's present system of utilizing deputies,
there have been no significant detention-related litigation
costs.
Public Safety would be diminished on a day-to-day basis by the
absence of trained professionals supervising the inmate
population, and in an emergency situation, the resources
available to protect county residents would be severely depleted.
II. Summary of Staffing Options
The staffing options that arise from the Detention Staffing Study are
as follows. The options are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A. Maintain status quo. Use deputy sheriffs for all custody duties
and civilians for program and business/clerical functions.
B. Develop two classifications for deputy sheriff. One
classification would be responsible for custody functions at a
lower salary, and one classification would be qualified for
patrol.
C. Develop,a non-sworn correctional officer classification:
1. for all detention functions - would need to convert 170
existing sworn detention staff and hire whatever added
positions are required for the new facility;
2. for limited detention functions, e.g. , with no inmate
contact (like Ventura's Sheriff Services Technician
position) or limited inmate contact (depending on security
level). Deputies could continue being used at the MDF to
supervise the maximum security prisoners and deputies and
correctional officers could be used at the new facility.
The new facility will house minimum and medium security
prisoners--the majority of whom will be sentenced.
D. Maintain current deputy sheriff classification but increase the
use of non-sworn persons in various roles in the detention
division:
1. group counselors at Work Furlough - could convert existing
sworn staff at Work Furlough (16) to non-sworn staff with
one supervising sworn person.
2. group counselors at drunk driving facility (if developed)
if Rehabilitation Center were converted tosentenceddrunk
driving facility when new jail is operational and held 100
or more prisoners,, it could be operated with one sworn
person and alcohol counselors.
Internal Operations Committee 4 October 8, 1985
3. group counselors to staff the Work Alternative Project.
Advantages to changing current staffing system in Contra Costa County:
Save money in wages paid to staff if paid at lower salary and
save money in training costs. Deputy classification is the
highest-paid custody class, Deputy I is second highest and
correctional officer is lowest-paid custody class. Almost all
deputies and correctional officers are members of safety
retirement. No cost savings can be anticipated in this area.
In some counties, deputies did not like jail duty. This is not
an accurate representation of staff views in Contra Costa County.
Disadvantages to changing current staffing system:
May need more people to do the same job. Sonoma County uses
correctional officers and has the lowest pay scale but the
highest staff to inmate ratio.
Recruitment and retention difficulty. Sonoma County currently
has 40 vacancies in detention and 767 of their detention staff
has. been hired since January 1983. Kern County has a problem
with correctional officers leaving for better paying jobs.
Deputies in Contra Costa County currently leave for better paying
city police agency jobs.
Competency problems. The maintenance of control in the detention
facilities, particularly under stressful overcrowded conditions,
may be problematic with lower-qualified personnel.
Can expect continued efforts by new non-sworn class to achieve
pay parity with deputies.
III. CONCLUSIONS
Operating costs for the detention system are made up of wages,
benefits and the number of personnel needed to operate the system. A
reduction in any or all of the above will translate into cost savings.
Marginal, if any, .savings• can .be anticipated in the benefit package.
If the County elected to pay detention officers less than patrol
officers' salary, savings could be achieved. A Deputy I
classification would not save as much as a Correctional Officer
classification (based on the experience in other counties) but would
provide more flexibility. If it is determined that the salaries of
deputies and correctional officers should be comparable (as
recommended by the National Institute of Corrections and the American
Correctional Association), there does not appear to be significant
justification for making a transition to Deputy 1 or Correctional
Officer.
Internal Operations Committee 5 October 8, 1985-
All
985All interested parties will be represented at the October 14, 1985 Internal
Operations Committee meeting to discuss these options. As directed by your
Committee, this Office 'is prepared to write a further report with
recommendations on detention system staffing based upon the input and
discussion at the October 14 meeting.
GR/jw
Attachments
cc: Nancy C. Fanden, Supervisor, District 2
Robert I. Schroder, Supervisor, District 3
Sunne McPeak, Supervisor, District 4
Charles Hammond, Chief Assistant County Administrator
Richard Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner
Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Contra Costa County Taxpayers' Association
Public Employees Union, Local One
Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission
;f ATTACHMSENT A
TAA'kAFPAYE R tAmi'cis
A-%r&0e4&:k)_W
BOX 27 • MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 415-228-5610
Contra Costa Count-
August 15 , 1985 RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1985
Phil: Batchelor , Administrator oHicG ;;f
Contra Costa County Count-,,, Administrator
651 Pine Street , 11th Floor
Martinez , CA 94553
Dear Phil :
The "Detention Staffing Analysis Study" has been reviewed by
our Executive Committee . The Committee was impressed with the
depth of -the study. .They concluded , however , that the County should
further , study ,the .pro.found _implications of . changing the staffing .
formula` aC_o' ur detention .facil.ities .from sworn ..deputy sheriffs only .
' We are , also interested -in -Association participation on the pro-
posed ._Criminal .Justice .Task Force .
Sincerely ,
Donald L . Christen
Executive Vice President
DLC : c1c
cc : Don . Jo.ost , Pres . CCTA
ATTACHMENT B
P.
Mcos!C to all. Supervisors)
This letter sent
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL ONE
�o �y� Contra Costa County Employees Association
4PLO11 PC`.COX 222 5034 OLUM ROAD MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553 • PHONE 226t6O0
Contra Costa County
RECEIVED
August 7, 1985 AUG - 9 1985
Ms. Nancy C. Fanden Office of
Supervisor, District 2 Count, Administrator
805 Las Juntas St.
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Fanden :
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a Tribune article
on jail construction and our comments on the issue of
"detention facility" staffing.
I feel that the Tribune article pinpoints the fallacy of
building bigger and bigger jails in order to reduce crime.
I strongly believe that our arguments in support of institut-
ing. the "Correctional' Officer" position provide you with the
opportunity to reduce both the � jail population and detention
facility costs.
On behalf of Public Employees Union, Local No." 1, I urge
you and your colleagues to promptly establish the "Correc-
tional Officer" position and to implement Supervisor
Torlakson' s suggested actions in his paper dated April 23,
19.85.
Sincerely,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO.HenL.L. Clarke
General Manager
Enclosure /I
1 Batchelor Count Administrator/
cc: Phil Y
THE UNION FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ORGANIZED 1941
ATTACHMENT B P. 2
Putting more peo em
cut the nation 's crimer' ate
8y tester vetie and Jerome Miller guard and otherwise care for an inmate. So, as
Attorney General Edwin Meese III has of- the American Correctional Association has
[erect public lands to states that would build pointed out. the original rust is only a 16 percent
prisons on them. Imprison more offenders, he down payment. A state (fiat invests $1.00 million
argues, and you have less crime. Crime is down, on prison construction will eventually pay out
he says, because the prison population is up. But $1.6 billion.
does imprisoning more people lower crime The rush to build prisons is powered by a
rates? counsel of despair; We're told the only thing that
Take Texas and Pennsylvania, with similar- works is to sideline the offender as tong as
sized populations. Texas imprisons three times possible. But better, less costly ideas emerge if
as many offenders as Pennsylvania. yet crime in we examine who is behind bars. When Delaware
Texas grew 2 percent.from 1983 through 1984; checked its prison population in 1983, it found
crime in Pennsylvania declined 1.9 percent.The that only 21 percent of the inmates had com-
Washington. D.C.,incarceration rate is three and mitted crimes requiring imprisonment. FBI data
one-third that of the cruntrv. Yet while crime show that of the nation's total prison population
declined nationally 3 percent from 1983 through during 1981, 1982 and 1983, inmates who com-
1984, in Washington it dropped 0.7 percent. mitted violent crimes constituted an average 37
Our prisons bulge with 40 percent more percent.
inmates than in 1980. Yet rates of violent crime No one argues against locking up killers,
— murder, rape,robbery, aggravated assault — rapists, robbers, muggers. But what about other
have remained virtually unchanged since then, approaches?
the Federal Bureau of Investigation says. it is 'Consider "Bessie," 26 years old. who faced a
the decline in crimes against property — larce- three-,year sentence for welfare fraud. Instead,
ny, fraud, car theft, breaking and entering (bur- she works at a fast-food job found by her proba-
glary) without a weapon or violent intent — that tion department. She will earn and repay the
accounts for the modest drop in overall crime $6,000 she embezzled. She must also put in eight
since 1983. hours weekly for two years helping blind people
Even the decline in property crimes can't be with housekeeping chores and transportation,
ascribed to greater imprisonment. Rather,there and take night courses toward a high school
have been fewer crime-prone youths 18 to 24 diploma.
years old in the population. Her sentence was based on a pian prepared
The notion that crime can be cut by jailing by a nonprofit organization, the National.Center
more people has plunged us into a costly prison- for Institutions and Alternatives, in Alexandria,
building binge that drains state revenues and Va.Such plans have diverted some 4,000 offend-
makes us victims of our war on crime. ers who would have filled four large prisons.
The corrections bite on state revenues since Fifteen states now support other groups provid-
1980 has doubled in New York, Texas and Cali- ing community-based alternatives to prison.
fornia. and tripled in Delaware. Nationally, per In 1973, a national commission named by the
capita prison construction costs, adjusted for Law-Enforcement Assistance Administration
• inflation and population changes.have increased urged that more offenders be transferred to
52 percent in four years.To build one prison cell community-based programs and that prison con-
costs New York State $110,000. Federal and struction be postponed until the need for more
state spending on prisons and jails — either prisons was clearly established. Until this is
C under construction or bond-approved — was$4.5 done, we will further punish ourselves and of-
billion last year. Since our.prison'population — fenders by pouring billions into one of history's
already at 700,000 — is increasing at the rate of great ratholes.
16,000 yearly, further billions will be needed for Lester Velie is author of "Murder Story. A
prison building in the foreseeable future. Tragedy of Our Time."Jerome G. Miller heads
Construction cost is only the beginning. To it the National Center for Institutions and Alter-
noust be added 30 years of interest on borrowed natives. This article appeared in The New York
money, plus an average $16,245 yearly to feed, Times.
-P.
ATTACHMENT B .3 - .
JI*': !
Statement By
HENRY L. CLARKE, General Manager,
Public Employees Union, Local No. 1,
regarding its position with respect
to the issue of establishing the
Correctional Officer classification
for. the purpose of staffing the Contra
Costa County detention facilities.
ATTACHMENT B - P. 4
Public Employees Union, Local No. 1 h-as an established
record of advocating the creation of the position of
Correctional Officer. We first recommended this action
in ' 1976 . It is our position now as it was then that
adequate supervision of inmates can be provided by cor-
rectional officers . The resulting salary savings can
be converted into programs which will keep people out of
long term high cost facilities , such as prisons , mental
hospitals , nursing homes and our County Hospital.
It is not my intention . to repeat what was so well
presented in the April 23, 1985 , paper of Supervisor
Tom Torlakson, which deals with the County criminal jus-
tice system, and the paper entitled, "Detention Staffing
Analysis Study" , dated July, 1985 , which was prepared by
the County Administrator' s office. Both documents alert
us to the hard fact that our County is confronted with
an enormous fiscal problem which is far more threatening
to our stability than that caused by the Health Services
Department fiasco of 1983-84.
Since passage of Proposition 13 you have cut staff,
in all areas , reduced capital expenditures , delayed neces-
sary maintenance, extended equipment usage and, in effect,
set a salary and wage freeze for a period of many months.
. .. ATTACHMENT B
2 _
The cost savings measures you have instituted have
made your Wall Street bond raters. happy but the real cost
in human suffering and its attendant high financial costs
have not been tabulated.
There are some things we do know. Emotionally dis-
turbed people are in a revolving .door. They are sedated,
sent out on the street and end up being abused, hospitalized
or incarcerated in the already over-crowed County jail.
AFDC families and BAC' s will not get proper care if our
medical and dental clinics are closed down or if their hours
are reduced, thereby causing physical conditions which
will be more costly to treat. Our County streets will not
be adequately maintained, thereby creating hazardous con-
ditions which may and probably will lead to "deep pocket"
settlements . Both juvenile and adult probation officers
have and will continue to carry unrealistic caseloads
which can only lead to their clients ' recidivism, thereby
overloading the County jail and criminal justice system.
The list goes on and on .as you well know.
The- establishment of the Correctional Officer position
will result in savings (the arithmetic to prove it is
in the CAO's ' report) . Page 14 of the County Administrator' s
report deals with projected annual costs for three differ-
ent levels of staffing that could be needed to operate a
new 560-bed detention facility in our County. The differ-
ences in an.nual costs between our County and Solano County
(which uses Correctional Officers only) show that for a
80-persons start., there would be savings or $534, 720 ; for
ATTACHMENT B - P..6
3 -
a 100 persons staff, there would be savings of $668 , 400
and for a 120 persons staff, there would be savings of
$802 ,080 . Currently , according to the CAD' s report , the
County has 170 authorized sworn detention personnel. If
and when Correctional Officers are authorized and replace
existing personnel through attrition, the County can effect
annual savings ranging. from $934, 320 to $1 , 136 , 280 (170
officers x 12 months x $458/$557 per month) (see Table A,
Page 12) . The fiscal crisis we are in and the burden of
financing the construction and maintenance of the new
detention facility require you to establish the Correc-
tional Officer position immediately. As vacancies in the
detention staff of the County jail occur they should
be filled by the Correctional Officer.
Despite claims by those who oppose the Correctional
Officer classification, it need not be a dead end job.
Careful planning in the development of the job specifications
and an upward mobility/promotion program can make it an
attractive job.
In closing, let me say, Local No. 1 stands second to
none in its concern which is translated into positive
actions for humane solutions to people problems , but I
cannot help but comment on the irony of providing better
care to criminals than we do to the innocent citizen who
is emotionally distressed, developmentally disabled, aged
or a member of an AFDC family or one on General Assistance.
ATTACHMENT B ,P.7
4 _
Let' s use the projected salary savings to help staff
these departments : Probation , Mental Health, Public Health,
Welfare, etc. , so that. our dedicated employees can do the
job they are trained for--to help people survive in our
society, thereby keeping them out of jails , mental in-
stitutions , nursing homes , juvenile halls and our County
Hospital .
ATTACHMENT C
Contra
Stell services:
Costa
CORRECTIONAL AND DETENTION CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY
' I_lfi'T`�J/ OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
��0.n r�i-mnn.1 L71vA x'101
C011
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
GEORGE ROEMER,Executive Director
(415)685
Administration Oldg.,Stir Floor
Martinez,CA.94553
j415)372 48tt)S
October 7, 1985
Honorable Tom Powers
Honorable Tom Torlakson
Internal Operations Committee
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa .County
Administration Building
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Supervisors Powers and Torlakson:
Re: Detention Staffing Analysis Study
The .Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission received for our
review the Detention Staffing Analysis Study prepared by the County
Administrator's Office. Staffing the County's detention facilities in the
most cost-effective manner is an issue of critical importance to our member-
ship, and we studied the CAO report as well as the responses from the Contra
Costa County Sheriff's Department, the Taxpayers Association, Local One, and
the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff's Association.
We are convinced that the County's detention facilities should be staffed
with deputy sheriffs in areas where there is direct inmate contact, such as,
all the housing modules.
Many of our members were part of the planning for the Martinez Detention
Facility, and through tours of other facilities and review of available
research, we became convinced that we had to hire, train and keep a highly-
qualified detention staff to operate the type of facility we were committed
to building. We believe the County, through the Sheriff's Department; has
accomplished that:.goal and we have a detention facility operation that has
.great credibility throughout the County, State and nation.
We believe strongly that to attract and keep quality applicants for
detention, the County must pay a competitive wage equal to that of other law
enforcement officers. If you pay detention staff less, it would mean ,a
lowering of standards and, hence, quality. We do not think the County will
save any money in the long run. Other counties, such as Sonoma, are finding
that they are going to have to increase the pay of their correctional
officers close to deputy sheriff to be able to recruit and keep a staff.
They currently have 40 vacancies in their detention staff, and 76 percent of
THE CORRECTIONAL AND DETENTION SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF
RUPE.RVISORS TO ADVISF.ON CURRENT AND PR(IPORFn AI)IU.T DFTFNTION FACILITIES,PROGRAMS.ALTFpNATIVEC
TO INCARCERATION,PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD,ETC.ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY
THE COMMISSION OR ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS DO NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE COUNTY OR
ANY-OF ITS OFFICERS.
ATTACHMENT C
Internal Operations Committee 2 October 7, 1985
their staff has -been hired since January 1983. The Court Master in 'Sonoma is
very concerned about the lack of ability of current correctional officers to
maintain control of their facilities. The Sonoma County Sheriff is now
recommending replacing correctional officers with deputy sheriffs.
If the County has to pay correctional officers a comparable wage to deputy
sheriffs and what we get is a lower caliber of person and a loss of flexi-
bility, it does not appear justified to make a transition.
In addition, the consequences of hiring less qualified persons is risking
greater liability costs.
We feel there may be some room for civilians working in such areas as the
Work Alternative Project, but do not think there is reason to justify a major
change in a staffing system that works so well.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
CLEMITT SWAGERTY
Chairman
CS:GR:pk .
cc: Hon. Nancy Fanden
Hon. Sunne McPeak
Hon. Robert Schroder
D ATTACHMENT D
Sheriff- Coroner R Richard K.Rainey
Contra Costa County A SHERIFF-CORONER
F Warren E. Rupf
P.O. Box 391 T Assistant Sheriff
Martinez, California 94553-0039
415 372- Gerald T. Mitosinka
Assistant Sheriff
To: Philip Batchelor, County Administrator pate: Sep. 30, 1985
From: Richard K. .Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner Subject: STAFFING: DETENTION FACILITIES
During my seven years as Sheriff-Coroner, many important issues have been
the subject of mutual .d.iscussion between my Department and the Board of.
Supervisors. Although there has been disagreement as to the ultimate solu-
tions, I do believe that we have always been able to arrive at an accomo-
dation acceptable to all parties, the Department, the Board of Supervisors
and ultimately, the public.
The issue presently under discussion, modes of detention staffing, is of
such importance to the county at large, that I frankly do not foresee
any solution other. than continuing the staffing of our detention facilities
by deputy sheriffs.
The final decision, in this matter will be one of the single most important
votes taken by this Board. In view of the magnitude in which I perceive
this issue, I am presenting the following information for your serious
consideration. Please .review the enclosed carefully and make your decision,
as I am sure it will be, in the best interests -- present and future -- of
this county and its citizens..
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Department of Corrections
Although it now seems like an eternity, it was only 10+ years ago, that
the Department was initially under attack by those wishing a civilianized
detention`system. The focus at that time was for an independent Department
of Corrections, "We should hire only professional jail administrators and
staff tooperateour counties jails" was the watchword. I was deeply
offended at that time because I knew the caliber of staff that was then
present and what could be accomplished if it were not for the antiquated
and severely overcrowded facilities that we were then operating. Fortunately,
that Board of Supervisors made the correct decision and allowed this Depart-
ment to truly demonstrate its capabilities and professionalism.
The Sheriff-Coroners Department has never forgotten that debate and the
resulting vote of confidence which was given us. As Sheriff-Coroner, I
have been determined to translate that vote into tangible proof that a
sheriff's department; especially this Department, can and will manage the
finest and most efficiently operated detention system in this country.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Staffing: Detention -2- 9-30-85
The Result
From time to time over these past five years, I have forwarded to you
samples of acclaim that the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) and its
staff have received. The American Institute of Architecture, the National
Institute of Corrections, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the
American Jail Association have all featured this facility and staff in its
publications and training conferences. Additionally, they have developed
policies endorsing the principles of operations that were founded in Contra
Costa County.
The MDF is one of only 14 accredited jail facilities throughout the United
States and Canada. . Over 4000 professionals from 41 states and 11 foreign
coup!-,ries have visited the facility. Major jail systems throughout the
countr-,r,are now. adopting the architecture and methods of operation of the
MDF: These systems include New York City, Miami , Portland, Seattle, Reno,
Las Vegas, etc. , etc. A far cry from a decade ago. Despite our present
overcrowding, the nation still considers this county the model for design
and operations of the future. Are we professional ? You bet we are and we
can prove it.
Planning the MDF.
We must ;not. forg.et that this county, in planning a new detention facility,
initially. expended, in° excess of $1 ,250,000 for a traditional jail plan ;that
was rejected by all concerned -= the Department, the public and thankfully,
the Board of Supervisors. The rejected plan was certainly efficient, one
deputy sheriff for each floor of 200 inmates. It was certainly secure,
14-foot thick walls at the foundation, no windows and filled with sophis-
ticated: hardware and security devices. , However efficient and secure the
building was, it would certainly have been an `expensive disaster for this
county if it had been built.
Upon rejection of this initial plan, the Board formulated a new approach,
citing new national standards, envoking extensive citizen participation,
hiring an outstanding national architectural firm and traveling to and
learning from the state of the art jails at that time. The process was
extensive, and at times slow and burdensom. However, the result of that
foresight and patience has been the historical turning point for this
nation's:.jails. - the. MDF.
All parties. involved in the MDF planning process recognized that by removing
the traditional barrier between staff and inmates, by providing humane
and constitutional treatment, and by complying with national standards,
would require sufficient staff that were well motivated, highly educated
and specifically well trained for the challenge which awaited them. This
was a different jail , unlike all others throughout the country and therefore
different strategies were required. The Department, the citizen Detention
Facility Advisory Committee (DFAC) , the County Administrator, the late
Arthur Will , the Board of Supervisors and the public were all aware and
recognized this additional challenge and accepted the responsibility for
insuring that the quality of staff would equal the quality of the facility.
We have met our responsibilities .
f Staffi.ng: Detention -3- 9-30-85
Deputy Sheriff Training
I make no apologies for both the extent and cost of our deputy sheriff
training system and program. Throughout my 23 years of experience in
law enforcement, I have seen the results of an inadequate hiring, training
and retention program and the ill effect that it has upon both the cost
,and quality of service we provide to the public. Low hiring standards,
negligent retention, inadequate training, poor policy and procedures and
lack of supervision will result in poor performance and ultimately personal
legal liability. Think about it. We are one of the very few counties
throughout this country which is not under the mandate of a federal court
and which does not have special masters dictating our budget and our policies.
This is not an accident. It is a direct result of fully complying with
the intent of all parties who built this facility and the amount of screening
and: traini.ng.whi,ch we give our staff. It is unnecessary to quote the state-
made by every management expert on the results of adequate hiring
and training. Every dollar spent on hiring and training will return major -
dividends throughout the careers of our staff. The Board and the public
wanted a model facility with well screened and trained staff and they
received everything which was envisioned.
- Civilianization
In January. of 1978, I was directed by then Sheriff Harry Ramsay, to trans-
late the MDF Program Document into a proposed staffing plan for the facility.
The instructions were clear-- Proposition 13 was on the ballot so be ,careful
- .and document only that which is required. Additionally, deputy sheriffs
were only to supervise inmates and not be utilized for clerical or support
functions. . Following this direction, the committee formulated a staffing
plan that fully complies. Dispatchers operate the electronic security
system (Central Control ); clerks operate the reception desk, telephone
answering, inmate accounts and records; institutional service workers
perform sanitation and laundry duty; cooks prepare the meals; and the
supervision and management of these units is performed by those within their
respective career ladders. This policy is maintained now and will be into
the future. Deputy sheriffs supervise inmates and clerical staff supervise
paper flow. This is the way it is and should be.
' Approximately five years ago, the Board of Supervisors, acting upon a recom-
mendation from the Sheriff-Coroners Department, reduced the training costs
of deputy .sheriff by establishing the .position of Deputy Sheriff Recruit.
This enabl;ed the Department to pay substantially lower wages (20%) to individ-
uals while attending the basic-academy. This non-peace officer position
enables the Department to still attract high quality personnel for they
understand that successful completion of the training results in the ulti-
mate transition to deputy sheriff. This program enables the Department
to save substantial money while still obtaining the high quality of staff
that is required.
Staffing: Detention -4- 9-30-85.
The Profession
The -day has long passed in the corrections profession where an agency could
;.hire off the: street, pin a badge on, hand over a set of keys and put them
to work. Jail litigation is the civil rights issue of the 1980' s. You
must be good or the court is going to get you. In almost every system
throughout this country, where correctional officers are employed, the
demands for equal pay are present and in many cases they are granted. Las
Vegas, for example, resolved their recuriting and retention problems only
by granting equal pay with street deputies. Neighboring Sonoma County is
now discussing reverting back to either equal pay or deputy sheriffs.
Additionally, California State Senator Barry Keene, the Senate Majority
Leader, stated the following in moving SB 1373 through the State Senate.
"White. Cat.i.sonn.ia's coAAeetionae peace oss.icetts have
one o ' the most demanding taw ensomeement jobs .in
the state, thein compensation .Gags San behind that
o5 tocat po.eice oss.icetus and deputie-6. . . .
"keene's Senate Bitt 1373 pttovidu that recommendations
Son cammect.ionat peace o66iceu' satGAy ranges
adviz on y cot eect iv e bamga,in.ing punpos es--
be based upon pay scates'.in companabte toeat
departments.
"Theme's an 18.4 pehcent .ttutnoveA nate among
eoAAecti.onat peace oss.icelus, twice the state employee
ave,%age. Running state pttisonus .in a sale and seeune
manner .ins a tough enough job. It shoutdn't be cam-
pounded by poor morate caused by satcrties that ane.
30-40 percent below pan.".
The' profession has taken a clear stance. The American Correctional Asso-
ciation, the National Sheriffs' Association, the American Jail Association
and the National Institute of Corrections have all adopted policy statements
that demand equal pay for corrections.
The Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, the agency which accredits
our facility, has as one of their essential standards and one in which we
have agreed by contract to comply with, the following:
112 5058: Compensation and bene6 is Son co)cAect-ionat
o66icelcus cute eompatabZe tb those Son taw ensoreement
oss.ieefus working .in .the same ongawizat.ion."
As justification, .they cite the following:
"Contectio,L6 has become an .inclteas-ingty complex and demanding
S,iekd. The ski,M, knowledge atea�s, attAibutez and personat
eharaeteA,i st.i.es requited oS corneet,ionat o66icens have arso
become .ineutea,5ingty complex and demanding, and eonsideAab.Cy
di6 'enen-t Smom those nequiAed o6 taw ensoneement peAzonneC.
Corvtect.iona.t oss.iceAz must be able .to .intenpnet and .imp.eement
count deeizions Aeeating to due pmocess and dizci.ptinamy
Staffing: '.'Detention -5- -9-30-85
ma-t.teu, and have an dndeuta.nding o6 opeAati.onat 6ecuA ty,
At6 o, they must be �abze,.to .intenptet:and ",6 i 6t .in .the man-
agement o6 inmate behav,i,o, oven tong peteiodz oS time undeA
the eonditi,o" o� eon6 inement. "
,Mr. Ray Nelson, Director of the National Institute of Corrections, states
the following:
"I6 you choose to compensate youx coA,ecti.onat zta65 at a
toweA nate than otheA o A A icen..6 in your own agency, the
dyicect supeAvision expeAienee wiU zunety bait. I6 we
ane to tv n around the .mag e o6 .the CoAAect io nat 06 6 iceAc
.in .the 80',s we need to accentuate the poz tiv e and that
mea" making them 6eee, good about themsetvu. when a
Co.,rAecti,onat 0J6-i.cen.',6 ke6ponz.ibit tiu ane gneateA ,than
a road o66 cen and we ane: continua ty asking move o6 .them
.in their da.i2y pe&6onmance, we need to compenzate .them
accord ingty."
Please note that Contra Costa County was the first direct supervision
jail in the country and that our entire system is based upon the principles
of direct supervision -- the very concept alluded to by Mr. Nelson and the
principle which has led to our very success. Remember my previous state-
ments. The Board, the County Administrator, the Detention Facility
Advisory°. Committee. (DFAC) and the public all were aware of the implications
of direct supervision when we built the Main Detention Facil-ity.-
The profession has taken a united stance and the message is clear -- pay
people for what they are worth and you will stay out of trouble. I find
this entire debate ludicrous,, the agency which operates the number one facility
in this country, with the most recognized professional staff, is strongly
`considering self-immolation contrary to the national trend of which we
set the pace. There is no other single agency of this county government
that has achieved the national recognition and reputation than that accorded
the MDF and its staff and we are seriously considering destroying the very
foundation of our every success.
The Available Workforce
The citizens of this county take pride in the quality of the workforce
available to staff the rapidly growing business and office industries
which are being relocated within this county. The area, the climate,
the institutions of higher learning and the standard of living throughout
this county, all combine to create a positive atmosphere for the upwardly
mobile high middle class workforce that is available for our new mush-
rooming economy.
This very workforce, however, produces the opposite effect on recruiting
and retaining employees at the correctional officer salary level now under
consideration. We need only to review the problems associated in our past
experience with the recruitment of another class of employees in that same
salary range, Sheriffs Dispatchers.. This testing is continuous and of those
we do hire, 50+% fail either the training program or probationary status:
Staffing: ' Detention -6- 9-30-85
Our neighboring county of Sonoma ,has experienced these very problems and
the following is a direct quote from a recent report to the Sonoma Board
of Supervisors concerning their efforts to recruit and train competent
staff from their available workforce.
"Nisto&icatty, jaUs have not been an area where Sund.ing
bodies desZted to spend money nor taw enso.tceme:nt admini,sttca-
totcs opted to send the.uc best peopte. Mone oaten than not,
budget requests Son move st a66, better tAaining, on state-
o6-the-art equipment went down to deseat quickty during
budged hea)ti.ngs and taw ensorcement adminusttc.a.totLs did not
u}anti to jeopardize the pattot on investigation request Son
the not-so-poputar ja.i2 enhancements, i.e., the Co,vAectionat
OSS-iceA se&i.es was .initia. ty devetoped Sar budgetary reasons
which meant a towen,ing o6 quati6 icat.ions Standards and
Training Brom the Deputy SheeiLiss's 5eAie5. ConsequentZ,
ja.i2s remained a .tow ptiotc i ty and it was not unfit. the .intet-
vention o6 the Fedetc.at Coutct,6 that enhancement began to
happen.
"Pnesentty, at the divicection o6 the Board os Supenv.i.sons, the
County Petsonnet and .the SheAi66's Depa4tments have once again
embarked on an "att-out" .n.ecn.u,&tmewt drive Son Contc.ecti.ona2
066iceu. Out oS the S.itcst 52 app.Pi,cawts ceAti6ied, only 4
have made it through the background process. When I o6 the
4 appt.icants toutned the Main Jait she rejected the job o 6 6 et.
That test us with 3 new peopte. Dutc,ing the same petoi.od o6
time, we ate Losing poss.ibty 6 emptoyees Son a net toss o6
3 o66icens. FouA os those ate teaving to become Deputy
SheAi66 's.
"The second group, who ane presentty .in the process os back-
ground .investigation, do not seem to be Baiting any better.
Aster discussion with .the conttc.act psychotogi6t, Dr. 'Mtichaet
Robetc tis, who iz one o6 the top taw ensorcement/connectional
ps ychotog,ist .in the nation, the pee sent group o6 app.P i.cants
ate among the worst he has even seen.. Dr. Robet�ts said he
could not bet.ieve these peopte werce Looking Son. careeu .in
connectioms and that, 'past ctc im.inat behavior, extensive
up-to-date hand d,.ug use, poo). phyz icat health, and tying
on the application aye genenaPly .the rote rathez than the
exception. '
"This atso seems to be consistent with the Last testing
os• appPicants where it came down to toweh i.ng some hi i_ng
standards to meet the Detention Division's emergency
needs . Thiz ,is not an acre;table method os bitting
n.
vacancies and hasesutted .in tc.aini.ng./supenv.ision ptobtems,
and an increase .in comptai.nts involving drug use, thesis,
brutatity, etc., resutting in intennat .investigations and
.in some case, termination." "Many o6 -these Sotks have
ptobtems with .inteApetvsonaP 512-iP2z, inabitity to dead at
co ite teg-ibty, and the inab,i Pity to compn.ehend the comptex ity
o6 an exttcemeey di"icu.Pt job with huge demands. In Sact,
the Fedetcat CouAt Monitor, Mr. .Tom LoneAgan, has recommended
Staffing: Detention -77 9-30-85
that the county utabZiz h a nemed:iat heading and wtit i.ng
conA-6e bon not only Connecti:ona.2 O66iceAs but a?,so bot
CoA ectionaZ SupehvxzOL6."
Since .the "date of the Sonoma Report to the present time, the following
personnel transactions have taken place:
August 27, 1985: 40 vacancies
11 new employees
29 vacancies
7 resignations
4 terminations
September 24, 1985: 40 vacancies
The resignations cited how pay, poor working conditions and high expec-
tations versus adequate compensation, the report (which I have previously
forwarded to you) recommends a pay scale equal to that of deputy sheriff.
Do we really think that the available workforce of this county will respond
and permanently fill these vital positions when we are having great diffi-
,.,culty with the position of deputy sheriffs at their wage level ? There
` is no question as .to the answer. Sonoma cannot do it, Napa cannot do it,
San Joaquin cannot. do 'it.and neither can the great State of California .
do it. What makes, Contra Costa County any different. Of those we ultimately
do hire, the best will leave to higher paying peace officer positions and
the worst we wial attempt .to fire, leaving vacancies at both ends.. Those
that remain, the .marginal , average employee will become the mainstay of
our operation, frustrated that it is not a higher paid police officer
position eand that they cannot afford even to purchase a house in any decent.
area in the county which they serve.
What some fail to understand, is that for the past two decades, the
:position of peace officer is one of the most highly competitive job markets
available. Almost any qualified and capable individual can move from
one department to another at will . It is common for one to accept a
.position, receive the training 'and then move through the lateral entry
programs into another department.
Currently, we are losing approximately lO deputy sheriffs per year to other
jurisdictions through the lateral hiring process. From one perspective,
this figure may not seem. too high. However, from another perspective,
consider that the cost of a single resignation, to include hiring, training,
and interim replacement, is $20,000 to $30,000. Then the problem becomes
acute. If our present 7%- turnover rate for deputy sheriffs increases to
the rate cited by Senator Keene (18/0) , we may then lose 3O- or more correc-
tional officers per year at a replacement cost of $600,000 - $900,000. Please
realize that any cost savings derived by lower wages will soon dissipate in
new hiring, training and replacement overtime expenditures.
Staffing: Detention -8- 9-30-85'.
This department, for years, did not have a lateral hiring process and we
host many fine staff because of this omission. Since becoming Sheriff-
Coroner, the department has instituted the lateral hiring .program and now
we do gain some personnel from the system. However, as in the past, we
also lose personnel , two during the month of September. Presently, our
system is stabilized, we gain some and we lose some. To lower standards
and pay will create an irreversible exodus from this department. Frankly,
who is going to leave another department to enter our service at a payscal.e
20-25% below what they are now earning? NOBODY.
Methods of Implementation
The implementation of a correctional officer series poses substantial problems.
Think for a moment, how are .we going to accomplish this transition if, .
regretfully, it occurs. Eliminate all detention deputy sheriff positions
and downgrade them to correctional officer. A few presently unemployed;
candidates will certainly accept the lower paid position, but only for
a short duration. Experience has shown that the majority will quickly
leave, taking with them their skills and training, to fill the numerous
vacancies available in other departments. There is no question that it
will take literally years, . if ever, to recover. Meanwhile, we will still
have increasing numbers of inmates and shifts to fill with only senior
deputy sheriffs at time and one half at top step. Hardly a cost savings.
The only other alternative will be to phase in the program by replacing
each ,vacant,.deputy sheriff' s position with that of correctional. officer.
With the magnitude of the transition that will be required, it will
literally take years, if again, ever, for such a transition to be made.
In the meantime, either the equal work/equal pay provisions of law will
be enforced, or the inevitable will occur; those hired, their union and
this department''wil-1 be demanding equal pay based upon all the problems which
we have heretofore outlined to you. In every county where this action
has occured, equal pay and benefits are either being demanded or achieved.
The entitlement to safety retirement membership has already been established
by law and by the California courts. In any case, the county will not
achieve any substantial savings through attrition for many years, if ever.
You need only to remember the recent situation with your qualified nursing
staff. You were faced with a situation of either paying the prevailing
payscale available atA ocal public and private hospitals or of losing
your .experienced; and �trained nursing staff. You made the correct decision
at that time by paying individuals wtlat they were worth in the prevailing
marketplace. Deputy sheriffs are certainly no different.
Demands Upon Staff
It is no secret that our facilities are acutely overcrowded and that this
department has taken extreme measures to maintain our population levels
at tolerable levels. The MDF was designed for 386 and hovers continually
at 600+ and the Marsh Creek Facility, which housed 90-100, now holds 262
and after the first of the year will house 322.
=Staffing: Detention -g 9-.30-$5 ^
-Additionally, as we move the less dangerous inmates to Marsh Creek, the
population density at the MDF of the more dangerous increases dramatically.
-We are ;able ,to maintain these l=evels only -due, to the quality, the training
and the professional-ism exhibited by our staff. ' There is no question that
without these vital ingredients, large numbers of additional staff will
= be required to both maintain order and avert serious legal complications,
i :e. , a federal court imposed population cap and facility monitor, all of
which have serious budgetary considerations as evidenced by the experiences
of Santa Clara, Sacramento, San Francisco and Sonoma counties. The bottom
line is, does the public and this Board really want lower grade staff
to handle this volatile and litigious inmate population. The answer is
obvious, of course you don' t.
The Criminal A encs Stud
The study completed by the Criminal Justice Agency, directed by George
'`Roemer, is an accurate snapshot of the comparisons between counties. I
find little criticism with the facts therein contained. However, you
must remember that the information was only a one day snapshot and does
not reflect the continuing increasing costs of those systems under litigation.
When you review the survey, look hard at the incarceration rates. Contra
-,%Costa County has consistently .produced the lowest incarceration rate of
any comparable county. We have fully complied with your Board Order 76/201
='which states:
"Redesign Guidet inu, A. 1 . That there wiU continue to
be a maximum ut.iti.zation o6 ptetitia.2 tete.aae and post ad-
judication a.2tennativea to ineatcenation that ane cutvicentty
avaitabte'undeA exZ6ting, .haw and consistent with the
pubtic'.a da6ety,, and that the County wilt ut,ieize,. any
Jutune a.Pte, natives that become penm-ias.ib.t'e under .Cato, ahe
6.inane.iatty 6easibte and ate a 6o cons.i,atent with the
pubt i:c 6a6ety."
'4On one hand, we struggle to maintain the lowest incarceration rate in the
state, and by doing so, we are subject to criticism because of the higher
' cost per inmate per day and lower staff/inmate ratios due to the lack of
inmates. You cannot have -it both ways. Ve can certainly equal any other
county in these categories, by eliminating our extensive release programs
and retain zincustody th6 types of. inmates confined in other counties.
Is this an appropriate solution"? Certainly not. Our comparable costs
- per day and inmate/staff ratios will look good, but actual costs will
dramatically increase. The important statistic that you should examine
and consider in your deliberations is the cost per citizen, a true reflection
of efficiency or non-efficiency. Contra Costa County is, presently one of
the lowest in the state, if not the lowest, despite being an accreditated
facility and staff, despite AMA accreditation and despite having the most
recognized professional staff in the country.
Yes, Contra Costa County spends a lot of money on corrections, but less
per capita than other comparable counties and you have obtained undoubtedly
the finest. What more can you possibly ask from the Department.
Staffing: Detention -10- 9-30-85
Popular Myths
Jails hold a peculiar fascination for everyone, government, the courts,
the media and the public. Managing such a facility places one in that
'proverbial fishbowl . No matter what occurs, the jail is the subject of
unusual attention. An assault or suicide. on the streets hardly.warrants
media attention, .however, within a jail the same action results in front
page coverage. This is a fact of life that one accepts and recognizes
when occupying my position. Additionally, cutting the jail 's budget is
a'.,•.ays a popular move because "they (the inmates) don' t deserve it anyway".
This attitude has lead most counties down a long, difficult and expensive
path. The false economies made by acting upon popular myths instead of
a proper. and responsible discharge of the public trust, has resulted in
court mandated, expenditures far above that which would have been normally
required.
.It is not popular to spend money on a jail and inmates and, yes, you will
surely be criticized for such expenditures. However, as long as we have
criminals, as long as we operate -jails, and as long as the public demands
longer sentences, we must spend an appropriate amount of money to insure
that our government meets its constitutional responsibilities, however
unpopular that may be. This responsibility i.ncludes sufficient facilities .
plus competent, .well trained and adequately compensated staff.
You are now:considering a. path which others have already unsuccessfully
taken;and 'are° now, returning to chart another course. Talk .to your fellow
supervisors from other counties and ask them what their predecessors left
for them to solve and then ask yourself which path to take. You are not
now gambling with your present course.
Comparable County Agency Facilities
We have already discussed our low per capita expenditures compared with
comparable counties, but how do we compare internally with other similar
county responsibilities.
The costs associated with housing and treating individuals in other county
facilities are substantially higher when compared to our Department
detention .system rate of $13,241 ,per year. When you consider the annual
cost per year, per juvenile at Juvenile Hall ($39,818) , the Boys Ranch
(' 17,946); the Boys Center ($28;428) ; the Girls Center ($32,674) , or the
Detoxification Centers ($16,425) then you must also realize that we operate,
.by far., the cheapest per person county facility. In addition, we have the.
largest concentration of the violent, the mentally ill , and the recalcitrant
inmates.
What is an Appropriate Salary
This is an extremely important subject to discuss. What should Contra
Costa County pay their staff for working under the stress and strain of
an overcrowded detention system where the non-violent and passive inmates
have been selectively released. The concentration of felons, i .e. ,
.:=Staffing: Detention -11 - 9-30-85
murderers (30) , robbers (54) , burglars (102), rapists (19) and parole
violators (53) has never been higher. When we speak of comparable worth, .
consider it in a different context, what is"our, detention staff actually
worth `for the difficult, demanding and stressful job they perform..
,When making the following comparisons, keep in mind that the Board presently
has a contractual obligation, with the various union employees working in
our detention system, which provides additional compensation that is not
reflected in the base• salary figures, i .e. , 5% hazard duty `pay and 5% shift
differential . These obligations increase. basic salaries 10% and are hidden
in the fringe benefit packages. However, for purposes of comparison and
what level the county will actually set the pay scale, these percentages
have been .omitted.
The numbers most often used by those participating in the debate to calcu-
.late savings, is the Solano . County Correctional Officer scale ($1567-1905)
for purposes of comparison, this scale will be used.
In general terms, consider the county scales as a whole. .-With approximately
700 differing wage scales, the correctional officer series will be lower
than 534 different classifications and above or relatively equal to 166..
Additionally they will earn, at top step, less money than the following
classifications: Sheriffs Dispatcher, Lead Gardener, Storekeeper, Apprentice
Mechanic, Supervising Cook, Automotive Parts Technician, Deputy Probation
' ,,.Officer I, Equipment Operator, . Fingerprint Technician, etc. Additionally,
"they will eitheristart at less money or take many step raises and years
to equal.; Laborer, Sheriffs Services Assistant, Cook, Gardener, Security
Guard, .Supervising Custodian., or Supervising Window Washer. This comparison
is not meant to degrade the worth of the many valuable employees who occupy
.those positions; however, it must be recognized that directly supervising
incarcerated felons, .in a constitutional manner, requires more skills, training,
and compensation than supervising cooks and gardeners. I know that you will
agree, the salary of deputy sheriff is adequate compensation.
Location of Detention Facilities
The citizens of this county, who by circumstance, live within close prox-
imity to our present detention facilities, i .e. , Clayton/Morgan Territory
Road, Martinez and San Pablo, expect that our detention staff will be com-
:-petent, well trained and professional . Would you be willing to co-exist
-next to- a fac imity where its staff was anything less than the best? Of
course you wouldn' t.
Think back to the public meetings we have held with those concerned with
the proposed sites of our new facility. We have assured the public that
there is no danger and that those that staff our facilities are recognized
as the best in the country. If implemented, this primary argument is
literally out the window.
Those who now have facilities in their backyards and those who are opposed
to one in any proximity will surely feel betrayed by this county government.
Staffing: Detention -12- ~9-30=85
Implications for the New Facility
The Department and the New Facility Project Team have based the entire
program for the new facility upon the demonstrated competence of our staff.
For example, to save future dollars we have expanded modules from 48 inmates
(recommended by the National Institute of Corrections) to 64. Additionally,
we have approved a campus design which allows one deputy to supervise two
modules (containing 128 inmates) on the morning shift. Toilets and security
locks have been removed from the cells. The very program and future design
of this building requires only the finest in staff if it is to be successful .
If this proposal is approved, I am left with no choice but to demand that
a ,new program and a facility which will incorporate a much higher level of
security hardware. All of which will require substantial additional funds.
Flexibility
Flexibility in job assignments is vital to the long term operations of
any sheriff's department. I have long insisted that all deputy sheriff
personnel be able to respond to any emergency situation which may ari.se
throughout this county. We will have earthquakes; we will have mass demon-
strations; we have huge spills of toxic wastes; and we will have riots.
Our previous history serves as a lesson for tomorrow. When such incidents
have occured, the ability to quickly respond with all available trained
staff has proven, i.nvaluable. I want trained deputy sheriffs on the line,
no matter what their current duty assignment may be -- patrol , coroners,
detention, etc.
The public demands that their elected officials be prepared, :to the best
of their abilities, for the efficient conduct of their responsibilities
during times of emergency. This is an essential responsibility of government.
I recognize that these incidents do not occur on a daily or even yearly
basis. But when emergencies do occur, and they certainly will , we must be
prepared. Please consider the negative consequences to the public order
if I cannot utilize approximately 100+ off-duty personnel in an emergency
situation because they are correctional officers and not trained in law
enforcement responsibilities.
Please understand that correctional officers are not police officers and
therefore cannot. be..utilized outside the confines of a detention facility.
Implementation of the correctional officer series would seriously jeopardize
my ability to adequately respond to any large emergency situation.
Conclusion
Every county responsibility is important. Each person, no matter what
their situation in life or responsibility with the county, performs an
important task. . Lawyers, engineers, planners, equipment operators, nurses,
etc. , all have a function to perform and the public expects, no demands,
that each duty be performed by capable and qualified staff. We would
never consider utilizing para-legals to represent us in court, students
to engineer our roadways and flood control projects, or LVN"s to make a
medical - diagnosis or prescribe medication. In that same light, we should
Staffing: -Detention -13- 9-30-85
never consider a lower paid, less qualified or lesser trained person to
supervise the hardened criminals which we hold in custody.
During the 1950's and 1960's, this Department experimented with quasi-
correctional officers, i .e. , Deputy I and Deputy II classifications. For
all the reasons cited above, Sheriff Walter Young and the Board of Super-
visors re-evaluated their positions and reverted back to the single Deputy
Sheriff classification. We tried it once and it did not work. The same
problems still remain; why try again.
There is no short or long term financial saving for this county by insti-
tuting correctional officers. Certainly you realize, with your experiences
in your personal life, your professional careers and in your public service,
that the old proverb is true, "You only get what you pay for". Therefore,
I strongly. urge you to consider the evidence, appreciate what this county
has accomplished in corrections and continue your support of a personnel
management system that has served this county well and has become the model
for the country.
ATTACHMENT E
C0NT,Rfv �COUNTY
DEPUTY SHER 'E' *} f S,JCIAT10N INC.
P.O. BOX 333 ; ,�q. 4' tb„yMARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
� tober 3 , 1985
County Board of Supervisors
Contra .Costa County
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez , California 94553
RE: Staffing of Detention Facilities
Dear Members of the Board:
This letter will set forth the position of the Contra Costa
County Deputy Sheriffs ' Association on the critical issue of
detention staffing now pending before the County Board of
Supervisors. As the professional association representing
deputy � sheriffs: throughout .the county, the Deputy Sheriffs '
Association is in a unique position to evaluate the merits of
pending proposals to replace sworn deputy sheriffs with civilian
correctional officers in county detention facilities. Our
concern with the safety of our members, the public and the
inmate population compels us to speak out strongly against these
proposals. . We also feel compelled to emphasize that the supposed
fiscal savings of such proposals are totally undermined by the
current case law concerning "safety retirement. "
The exemplary record of Contra Costa detention facilities
under the present system of professional staffing is amply set
forth in the memo prepared by Sheriff/Coroner Richard K. Rainey.
The Deputy Sheriffs ' Association concurs in the Sheriff/Coroner' s
remarks, and, like Sheriff Rainey, believes that without
professional staffing by deputy sheriffs, the. positive effects
of the current system, as well as the extensive praise it has
received, would soon be lost. it is simply not possible for
civilians with less training and less experience to perform at
the professional level of sworn deputy sheriffs . While the
attractiveness of budget cutting in an age of growing deficits is
not unrecognized by the Deputy Sheriffs ' Association, the
Association urges the Board to look seriously at any claimed
1
1985
rQ0TJ
County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
October 3 , 1985
attempt to save money when the potential cost of such savings
may be the safety of county workers , county residents , and
inmates under county supervision.—l/
Close scrutiny of pending proposals on detention staffing is
particularly warranted in light of the fact that a switch from
sworn deputy . sheriffs to correctional officers will not, because
of the county safety retirement system, result in any substantial
cost savings .to the county. Indeed, the Detention Staffing
Analysis Study . (Study) recognized that "benefits for correctional
officers and deputy sheriffs are similar in almost all counties.
This is because the most significant cost of the benefit package
is safety retirement. " (Study, at p. 9)
The need to pay correctional officers safety retirement
flows from a decision of the California Court of Appeal in Ames v.
Board 'of Retirement, 147 Cal. App. 3d 906 (1983) . In Ames, cited
by .the Office of the County Administrator in the Detention
Staffing Study, the Court analyzed the statutory provision
guaranteeing participation in the safety retirement system to
employees "engaged in active law enforcement. " (See Govt. Code -
Sections 31469 . 31 31469 .4 , 31470 .2 . ) "Active law enforcement, "
the Court found, included the following activities:
(1) . contact with prisoners on a regular basis;
(2) exposure to hazards from prisoner conduct; . and
(3) risk of injury from the necessity of being able
to cope with potential dangers inherent in the
handling of prisoners. (Ames, at p. 916 . )
In Ames, the Court applied this definition of active law enforcement
to the facts before it and held that Correctional Officers at the
Tulare County Correctional Center were entitled to .participate ,
in the state ' s safety retirement system. The duties of Tulare
County. Correctional Officers that were deemed relevant to the
Court' s ,.determination included the supervision of inmates in
living quarters, on work assignments, during meals and at
recreation; inspection of . living quarters for cleanliness and
proper order; preparation of .written. reports on work, conduct and
habits of inmates; and admission of visitors according to regulations.
(See Ames, at p. 913 . ) As the Detention Staffing Study recognizes,
1/ The Detention Staffing Analysis prepared by the Office of the
County Administrator candidly recognized that "it was not possible
to ascertain whether the facilities in this study are being operated
ii; a Safes mullilCl ." (study , at p. 4 . )
MM County Board of Supervisors
Page 3
October 3 , 1985
a civilian detention... staff in Contra Costa County would have duties
and responsibilities similar to those at issue in the Ames decision,
and therefore, the county would be required to include such staff
in the safety retirement system currently applicable to sworn
deputy sheriffs.2/
The inclusion of detention staff in the county' s safety
retirement system represents a significant cost to the county,
and casts serious .doubt on claims that a change to a civilian
staff "will save substantial money. The need to classify detention
staff as safety members is not, however,` the only reason why
a decision to remove inmate protection responsibilities from
deputy sheriffs is not cost efficient. The Detention Staffing
Anslysis Study recognizes the following additional "hidden costs"
that may well result from a decision to replace sworn .deputies
with a. civilian staff:
. *Hicther� staff/inmate ratio: While training costs per employee
are less for correctional officers than for deputy sheriffs,3/
the minimal training provided civilian detention staff may require
a higher staff/inmate ratio, thereby requiring more. personnel to
"get the job done" and, in turn, eliminating the savings traditionally
associated with training costs. (Study, at p. 11..) Significantly,
the county with the lowest cost per inmate is San Bernardino , a
' countyutilizing •°only sworn deputy sheriffs . . (Study, at pp. 9-10 .)
*High turnover: Higher attrition rates for correctional
officers as compared to deputy sheriffs require more frequent
training of new staff , another factor tending to offset lower,
training costs for correctional officers (Study at p. 11. )
!Another judicial decision that analyzes the phrase "active law
enforcement" includes Kimball v. County of Santa Clara, 24 Cal.
App. 3d .780 (1972) (Santa Clara Correctional Officers entitled to
safety retirement status) . This decision . -and others, all analyzed
in Aires lead inescapably to the conclusion that a civilian detention
staff in Contra Costa would be included in the. safety retirement
system. ..
3/Of course, a significant "unmeasurable" cost flows from the fact
that correctional officers receive only 80 hours training compared
to the other five hundred and forty hours required for the county' s
sworn deputies . The importance of training cannot be overestimated
when the job being trained for involves the guarding of inmates
and, in turn, the safety of the public.
, County Board of Supervisors
Page 4
October 3, 1985
*Potential litigation: The County Administrator' s Study
recognizes that potential litigation flowing from unsafe jail
conditions represents a significant cost in the operation of a
county' s detention .system. (Study at p. 13 . ) Under Contra
Costa County' s present system of utilizing sworn deputy sheriffs,
there has been no significant litigation costs in this area.
, . There is .no: way .to guarantee a continuation of this record if
trained deputy sheriffs are replaced with correctional officers;
*Long-term salary savings: The Detention Staffing Study
notes the possibility that pending legislation and recommendations
from the National Institute of Corrections may eventually result
in pay parity for deputies and correctional officers. (Study, at
p. 15. ) In light of other costs, and the threat of diminished
public safety- resulting from a change to a non-sworn staff, the
possibility of pay parity virtually eliminates the hope that
adoption of ' a new staffing system will represent long-term
savings to the county;
*Miscellaneous costs: The County Administrator' s Study .
recognizes that replacement of deputy sheriffs with correctional
officers in certain types of detention functions may increase ,
rather than decrease costs. (Study, at p. 15 . ) Thus , deputies
may still be required to supervise some non-sworn positions,
resulting in- an increase in the .overall number of paid staff. In . :
other classifications, the salary of replacement civilian personnel
may actually be higher than that currently paid to deputy sheriffs.
The hidden financial costs attendant upon a shift from sworn
deputies to civilian correctional officers require close attention
to the proposals currently -pending before the Board. However, the
Deputy Sheriffs ' Association believes that the nonmonetary costs
that such a change would entail are far more significant and should
be given even greater consideration in the Board' s deliberations,
on this critical issue. For example , elimination of a professional
detention staff poses a threat to the safety of the county employees
who will be charged with guarding the inmate population. The lack
of extensive and adequate training of correctional officers subjects
them to greater risk of injury in the event of a jail emergency.
This risk of injury may .well result in added costs per detention
employee 'the. county will have to pay. And, lack of staff training
also means greater risk of injury to the inmate population in the
event of an emergency, again resulting in potential increased
costs to the county.
The most significant nonmonetary cost involved in this issue,
however, flows from the fact that the county' s deputy sheriffs
who currently guard our inmate population also provide a highly
County Board of Supervisors
Page 5
October -3, 1985
trained force available in the event of an emergency. This reserve
of manpower would be eliminated were the Board to decide that a
civilian correctional force is sufficient' in county detention
facilities. Thus, not only would public safety be diminished
on a day-to-day basis by the absence of trained professionals
supervising the inmate population, but in an emergency situation
the resources available to protect county residents would be
severely depleted. - Even if correctional officers did not have to
be included in the safety retirement system, and even if the
elimination of sworn deputy sheriffs were not rife with hidden
costs, the Deputy Sheriffs' Association submits that the cost
to public safety resulting from the adoption of' pending proposals
is too high a price for this county to pay.
Thank you very much for your consideration of the information
contained in this letter. I, and other members of the Association
as well as our legal counsel, are prepared to testify further on
this matter or answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yyoou�rs,
Larry Aulich
President
Deputy Sheriffs ' Association
LA:yf
cc: Phillip Batchelor, County Administrator
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date: November 20, 1985
SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON
SUPERVISOR TOM POWERS
C
From: GEORGE ROEMER Director Subject: FURTHER INFORMATION RELATIVE TO
Justice System Programs DETENTION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY
The Detention Staffing Analysis Study done by this Office and the written
responses to that study were presented at the October 14, 1985 meeting of
the Internal Operations Committee. The following report presents some
additional information requested at that meeting.
1. Salary Costs of Deputies and Correctional Officers
The following analysis assumes that the cost difference between
deputies and correctional officers is in salary and training costs and
that there is no significant difference in benefit costs.*
There .are currently 166 authorized deputies in detention. At any
given time, . with the current level of patrol services and the average
daily population in the detention facilities, there are a certain
number of deputy positions which, if authorized and filled, will
result in a direct reduction of overtime costs. At the present time,
the Department estimates that this amounts to 15 deputies.
For comparison purposes, let us assume Contra Costa County is paying
for 181 custody deputies at the top salary step .of $2,462. Also,
assume the County could replace these 181 deputies with correctional
officers at the top step salary rate that Solano County pays their
correctional officers--$1,905, or at the top step the Department of
Corrections pays their correctional officers--$2,227.** (It is not
clear that Contra Costa County could hire correctional officers at
either of these rates. )
*Safety Retirement
The Solano County Administrator's Office reported that correctional
officers in that county received safety retirement benefits during the
most recent negotiations. Thus, all personnel directly supervising
inmates in the 12-county study now receive safety retirement.
**It should be noted that Solano County is having some recent recruitment
and retention problems due to the massive California Department of
Corrections hiring program for correctional officers at Vacaville. This
is expected to continue for at least the next five years.
Internal Operations Committee 2 November 20, 1985
Annual Salary
Annual Salary Savings for 100
Top Annual Cost for Every Correctional
Step/Mo. No. of Salary Additional 100 Officers vs.
Classification June '85 Officers Cost Officers . Deputies
-------------------- -------- -------- ---------- -------------- ---------------
Deputy Sheriff $2,462 181 $5,347,464 $2,954,400
(Contra- Costa County)
Correctional Officer. $1,905 181 $4,137,660 $2,286,000 $6-68,400
(Solano County)
Correctional Officer $2,227 181 $4,837,044 $2,672,400 $282,000
(California Dept. of
Corrections)
The above table shows the cost differences for every 100 additional
custody officers needed, e.g. , to staff the new jail, using the salary
rates in' Contra Costa, Solano and the California Department of Correc-
tions.
2. Training Costs for Deputies and Correctional Officers
a. Correctional Officers
(l) Correctional Officers minimum training requirements are set by
Standards and Training for Corrections (S.T.C. ).
(2) Basic S.T.C. funds are obtained by using the following
formula:
*Allocation Per Person
x Total Eligible Staff
Department Allocation
The 85/86 figures for the Sheriff are $500 x 175 staff = $87,500
*Allocation per person is set yearly by S.T.C. and is dependent
on their resources.
(3) S.T.C. funds will pay for:
(a) Replacement costs.
(b) Travel costs ($.30 per mile maximum).
(c) Per them costs ($66 maximum).
(d) Tuition costs.
S.T.C. program funds can not be used to pay the salaries,
benefits, overtime or shift differentials of those attending
training.
Internal Operations Committee 3 November 20, 1985
(4) The S.T.C. program distributes the funds to the participating
agency on a quarterly basis with the amount being pre-
determined by the department's Annual Training Plan.
b. Deputy Sheriff
(1) Deputy Sheriff minimum training requirements are set by Peace
Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T. ) with an S.T.C.
requirement if the Deputy is going to work in Corrections.
(2) P.O.S.T.. funds are distributed by submitting a claim for
reimbursement after training is completed and they use the
following formula.
(a) 60% of participant's salary.
(b) $66 per day subsistance.
(c) $.26 per mile travel.
(d) Basic tuition costs.
With the above information in mind and using an example of 10 new Deputies
vs. 10 new Correctional Officers both being paid at the new Recruit level
of $1,620 per month during basic training:
10 Deputies to Basic Academy 10 C. O. 's to S.T.C. Core Course
(640 hrs) 520 hrs reimbursed (80 hrs) + CPR & First Aid
P.O.S.T.
Cost Reimbursed Cost S.T.C. Pays
Tuition 5,'400 2,100 7,393 5,000*
Salary 59,930 29,216 7,491 0
Subsis. 0 4,712 0 0
Travel 0 6,250 0 0
------- -------- ------ --------
$65,330 $42,278 $14,884 $5,000
net cost net cost
$23,352 $9,884
The Board of Corrections is in the process of upgrading the minumum
training requirements for Correctional Officers. As of this date, the
recommendation is to increase the S.T.C. basic training requirement
from 80 hours to 156 hours for FY 86/87; which would almost double the
present training cost of $9,884.
*S.T.C. allows $500 per person for training during 85/86 FY.
Internal Operations Committee 4 November 20, 1985
10 Deputies to 40 hour S.T.C. Course
Tuition 3,700 3,700
Salary 4,684 0
Subsis. 0 0
Travel 0 0
$8,384 $3,700
net cost
$4,684
DEPUTY TRAINING GRAND TOTAL;
Cost $73,714 Reimbursed $45,978
Overall net cost: L$ 7,736
3. Maintain current deputy sheriff classification but increase the use of
non-sworn persons in various roles in the detention division.
A review was made of the various functions performed by deputies other
. than the custody function in the living units to assess the feasibili-
ty in further civilianizing detention functions.
As noted in the Sheriff-Coroner's September 30, 1985 letter to the
County Administrator, civilians already perform the following func-
tions in detention: dispatch (central control), reception, telephone,
accounts and records, sanitation, laundry and food service.
The following positions have been identified as potential functions to
be performed by non-sworn staff. Issues regarding the cost-
effectiveness or feasibility of making a change have been noted.
a. Bailiffs/Court Attendants
The Superior Court bailiffs in Contra Costa County (who are
deputies) maintain courtroom, building and exterior security and
assist with security and movement of prisoners. The other tasks
they perform are clerical in nature: mail, phones, library, etc.
There are a number of concerns regarding the conversion of bailiffs
from sworn officers to civilians.
(1) There are no totally civil calendars in Contra Costa County.
All Superior Court Judges must be available to handle felony
criminal cases. In some of these criminal cases, there is a
need for armed officers in the courtroom. Sheriff's
Department transportation deputies transport and stay with all
in-custody criminal defendants while in court. However, the
bailiff is the only security for out-of-custody defendants
while in court.
Internal Operations Committee 5 November 20, 1985
The bailiff classification in all likelihood would have to
have firearms training (P.C. 832).
(2) It might be necessary to hire more civilian bailiffs than the
current number (16) because the Sheriff fills requests for
extra help, e.g. , visiting judges, from other manpower in the
Department as a whole.
b. Transportation Officers
Deputies search, secure and transport inmates to the various
courts, supervise. inmates in Superior Court, make out-of-county
pickups on warrants and removal orders, transport inmates to state
prison, County Hospital, act as relief-Bailiff, and additional
court security as required.
Some counties included in the staffing analysis study used
correctional officers in transportation. Some used correctional
officers only for intra-county transport (Fresno) and others used
C.O. 's for both intra and outside of the county transport (River-
side).
The transportation function is a crucial security link. If an
inmate is going to escape from a maximum-security setting such as
the Martinez Detention Facility, the attempt may occur during
transport of the inmate. The Sheriff transports 30-35 inmates with
one deputy driver in the Department bus, and 13 inmates with one
deputy driver in the vans. The Sheriff used to operate
transportation with a civilian bus driver and a deputy. The deputy
now drives the vehicle and provides the security.
c. Work Alternative Project (WAP)
The WAP deputies conduct applicant interviews, schedule work days,
check work sites on random basis, and account for income.
There are no security reasons why WAP staff need to be sworn
officers. There are currently three deputies and one half-time
civilian clerk operating the WAP project. However, little cost
savings can be achieved by replacing deputies with civilians. WAP
participants pay the cost of the project. By law, no profit can be
made on participant fees, so if there were a staff cost reduction,
there would have to be an accompanying fee reduction. An actual
cost increase to the County might occur by replacing deputies with
civilians because some of the deputies assigned to staff WAP are on
light duty (one deputy currently).
Internal Operations Committee 6 November 20, 1985
The Sheriff's Department has one of the best department records in
the County in terms of workers compensation.* One of the reasons
for the outstanding record is being able to assign people with
various types of injuries or conditions to jobs they can perform
while disabled.. Otherwise, these employees would be home receiving
compensation.
i d. Classification Officers
Classification deputies interview all inmates to be housed more
than 72 hours, determine proper housing assignments, respond to
protective custody and administrative segregation requests, and
attend prison gang task force meetings.
While this is a specialized function and not part of direct
security, the individuals performing this function must have
credibility among custody staff, be cleared for access to
confidential records, and be knowledgeable of, and able to work
with, prison gangs.
e. Bureau of Administrative Services
Deputies in Administrative Services handle a variety of tasks
including population analysis, court orders, facility inspections,.
facility tours, training, etc. The positions do not require law
enforcement capabilities. However, the positions would be
comparable to management analyst positions. The top step for a
Management Analyst II is $2,469 which is almost identical to a top
step deputy. There would be some savings in benefit costs. A
change from sworn to civilian for these positions might not be
worthwhile from a cost savings or job effectiveness perspective.
f. Work Furlough Field Officers
There are currently three Work Furlough Field Officers who perform
all the investigations for work furlough and County parole
eligibility, the supervision of persons on work furlough at the
work site, provide occasional relief for custody officers at
the WFF, and the preparation and serving of arrest warrants for
persons violating parole. If these positions were civilianized,
they would probably be filled by a Deputy Probation Officer II at a
top step salary of $2,375 or a DPO III at $2,555. Again, such a
change would, at a maximum, result in salary cost savings of
$100/month or cost more than the Work Furlough Field Officers.
There would be savings in benefit costs.
g. Work Furlough Facility Custody Officers
Existing deputies at Work Furlough could be converted to non-sworn
staff. If a classification such as group counselor was used, there
might be some potential for cost savings. At the current time, the
staffing pattern is:
*Source: Personnel Department-Safety & Benefits.
rs;•.
Internal Operations Committee 7 November 20, 1985
Days 1 sergeant
2 or 3 deputies (one female)
Swing 1 sergeant
2 deputies (one female)
Graveyard 1 sergeant
1 deputy (female)
(The work furlough dorm. is not staffed on this shift. )
In Santa Clara County, group counselors working at the work
furlough facilities receive between $2,036 and $2,380/month. This
would translate into a cost savings of $89 to $433/month per deputy
position or $9,612 to $46,764 a year. There would also be benefit
cost savings.
An assessment would have to be made as to whether or not the same
number of group counselors could supervise the WFF as deputies. An
additional problem is that the WFF is not operated solely as a
minimum-security facility. It serves as the branch jail for
medium-security pretrial and sentenced women because of the
overcrowding at the Martinez Detention Facility. This condition
will continue and may worsen over the next five years until a new
detention facility is operational.
An additional consideration is that the WFF usually has persons
assigned there who have work. related injuries or other
disabilities. Again, absent certain types of jobs, these persons
would be home drawing compensation. One light-duty employee
recently released back to patrol had been at the WFF for two years.
g. Marsh Creek Detention Facility
The Marsh Creek Detention Facility now serves as a sentenced
facility for all medium and minimum-security male County prisoners
not eligible for work furlough; and the branch jail for the
overflow of medium-security pretrial prisoners from the Martinez
Detention Facility. The Sheriff has requested and had authorized
an Institutional Service Worker for Marsh Creek to handle
purchasing, inmate cash, and maintenance to relieve the sworn staff
of those duties so they can provide more inmate supervision.
At a future date when the new facility is opened, consideration
should be given, if .the inmate population warrants, to operating
the Marsh Creek Facility as a facility for persons sentenced for
alcohol/drug-related offenses. Currently, Marsh Creek houses, on
the average, at least 50 persons committed for drunk driving-
related offenses alone. The majority of these offenders do
not require more than a minimum-security setting. Such a facility
could be staffed by alcohol rehabilitation workers who receive a
top step salary of $1,728/month. Some sworn officer supervision of
the facility would still be necessary.
Internal Operations Committee 8 November 20, 1985 ,
Limited Classifications
One overall consideration in contemplating conversion of deputies into
smaller classifications, e.g. , group counselors, is the loss of flexibility
with limited classifications. For example, if you have six male and six
female group counselors and you have an unplanned absence, you would have
no other option but to fill the position with a deputy on overtime. If you
had 100 group counselors, you would have the ability to move personnel
around more.
GR/jw
cc: Nancy C. Fanden, Supervisor, District 2
Robert I. Schroder, Supervisor, District 3
Sunne McPeak, Supervisor, District 4
Charles Hammond, Chief Assistant County Administrator
Richard Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner
Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Contra Costa County Taxpayers' Association
Public Employees Union, Local One
Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission
1. Jail staffing analysis .
i2. Deputy .Sheriff replacement not supported.
r
3 . Detention Facility staffing.
4 . C/A to conduct comparison w/counties .
{