HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10241995 - D6 Revised D.6
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1.0.- 3 s L
"
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
Contra, ,,..
FROM:
of.
County
October 16 1995
DATE:
SUBJECT: USE OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN DETENTION FACILITIES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. DIRECT the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner to jointly prepare a report
and present it to the 1996 Internal Operations Committee which responds to the
following parameters and questions:
0 Assuming a four-year timeframe within which to implement some possible
changes to the staffing patterns in the County's detention facilities, and
• Assuming a desire to reduce dependence on overtime as a method of
providing an adequate level of staff within the detention facilities, and
• Assuming the availability of a modest amount of additional funding for
staffing in the detention facilities, although it is not the Committee's intent in
making this recommendation to in any way imply that resources would be
moved between County Departments during the current fiscal year in order
to provide additional funding, and
• Assuming a willingness on the part of the Sheriff to explore some changes
in the duties presently assigned to Sheriff's Aides and Sheriff's Specialists,
and
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: A YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE fI OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER IM ROLE S
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT none ) 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.
ATTESTED October 24, 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: See Page 5 SUPERVISORS AN OUNT!ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
1.0.- 3 ,
• Assuming there is no interest on the part of any of the involved parties to
reduce Deputy Sheriff staffing through layoffs:
What are the available options for staffing the detention facilities,
taking into consideration the experience of other jurisdictions, the
relative cost of various classifications, the duties which can legally be
performed by various classifications, the flexibility in the use of staff
of various classifications, and the possible savings or cost of each
pattern of staffing?
What are the relative "Pros" and "Cons" of each alternative that is
identified?
What factors does staff recommend that the Board of Supervisors
take into account in judging one alternative versus another?
z What would staff recommend the staffing pattern be in the detention
facilities, considering the availability, relative cost, and relative
flexibility in the use of Deputy Sheriffs, Custody Service Officers,
Sheriff's Specialists and Sheriff's Aides?
What is the recommended process and timeframe for moving from the
current staffing patterns and levels to the recommended staffing
patterns and levels?
2. DIRECT the Risk Manager, in consultation as necessary and appropriate with the
Sheriff-Coroner, Director of Human Resources and County Counsel, to prepare a
report to the 1996 Internal Operations Committee on the relative liability costs to
various jurisdictions which use exclusively Deputy Sheriffs in their detention
facilities versus jurisdictions which use other staffing patterns including exclusive
or substantial use of Correctional Officers, the use of Custody Service Officers in
conjunction with Deputy Sheriffs and other staff patterns which may be appropriate
to review and compare the liability experience of these other jurisdictions with the
liability experience of this County. The purpose of the report should be to
determine, to the extent this is possible, whether there is a causal or statistically
significant relationship between the use of Deputy Sheriffs versus other classes of
employees in detention facilities and the liability loss experience of the jurisdiction.
3. DIRECT the County Administrator, in conjunction as necessary and appropriate with
the Sheriff-Coroner and Director of Human Resources, to compare the amount and
dollar value of overtime paid to detention facility personnel in this County with other
comparable jurisdictions. The purpose of this comparison should be to reach some
conclusion as to whether the level of overtime in this County's detention facilities
differs significantly from the level of overtime in other jurisdiction's detention
facilities and whether any conclusions can be drawn from the amount of overtime
which is used in regard to the overall cost and efficiency of the jurisdiction's
detention facilities. [Supervisor DeSau/nier supports this recommendation;
Supervisor Rogers does not]
4. REQUEST the Sheriff-Coroner and Deputy Sheriff' Association to discuss issues
involving conversion flexibility of Deputy Sheriff positions to other classifications
such as Custody Service Officers, Sheriff's Aides and Sheriff's Specialists and
report any progress to the 1996 Internal Operations Committee. [Supervisor
Rogers supports this recommendation; Supervisor DeSau/nier does not].
5. For the purpose of receiving and considering the above reports, REFER this subject
matter to the 1996 Internal Operations Committee.
6. REMOVE this subject as a referral to the 1995 Internal Operations Committee.
2
1.0.- 3,
X � ,
BACKGROUND:
On July 18, 1995, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee and the
Internal Operations Committee the issue of whether the County should move in the
direction of using Correctional Officers in the Detention Facilities instead of Deputy
Sheriffs.
Attached are the following documents:
1. A report from the Sheriff-Coroner dated October 12, 1995, agreeing to the study of
the use of a position of Custody Service Officer, as is provided for in Penal Code
Section 831.
2. A copy of Penal Code Section 831.
3. A copy of the Finance Committee report to the Board of Supervisors dated July 11,
1995, which was referred to our Committee and the Finance Committee for further
deliberation. Attached to this report is a supplemental report by Carol Kizziah and
Mark Morris to the original feasibility study done in February.
4. A copy of the Clerk's Summary of the July 18, 1995 Board meeting indicating the
referral of this subject to our Committee and the Finance Committee rather than the
recommended action from the Finance Committee.
5. A copy of the February 27, 1995, feasibility study done by the County
Administrator's Office.
On October 16, 1995, our Committee met with Sheriff-Coroner Warren Rupf, members of
the Sheriff's staff, Jeff Kyle, President of the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA), Joe
Surges from DSA, Henry Clarke and Paul Katz from Local 1, members of the 1995-96
Grand Jury and Leslie Knight, Director of Human Resources.
Sheriff Rupf reviewed his report and the cover memo with our Committee. The Sheriff
emphasized that he was not recommending the changes outlined in the report. He has
prepared the report outlining the possible use of a Custody Service Officer class to
supplement the Deputy Sheriff staff in the detention facilities as one example to pursue if
the Board of Supervisors is interested in moving in this direction. Sheriff Rupf noted that
he was always willing to sit down and talk about cost savings suggestions, but noted that
such discussions should involve a review of all classifications in the County, not just those
in the Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs position is perhaps most succinctly summarized
in the following sentence quoted from his memo:
"I can agree to discuss Custody Services Officers, I cannot
allow staffing to further diminish by converting Deputy
Sheriffs to a new classification."
Sheriff Rupf emphasized repeatedly that he does not have enough staff to the job he is
required to do, particularly with the ever-increasing problem of overpopulation in the
detention facilities.
Supervisor Rogers indicated that the idea of using the Custody Services Officer position
made sense to him as a source of getting to know possible candidates for future promotion
to Deputy Sheriff. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about meet and
confer implications in the proposal contained in his memo, Sheriff Rupf indicated that in
his opinion everything in his report had meet and confer implications.
Supervisor DeSaulnier asked about the implications for liability settlements of the use of
other than Deputy Sheriffs in the detention facilities. He also noted that in the County
Administrator's report from February, 1995 it is emphasized that the use of correctional
officers will work effectively only if the Sheriff is in full support of the conversion and asked
3
Sheriff Rupf what his feelings were. Sheriff Rupf replied that he was always willing to take
a look at new ways to do their job.
Jeff Kyle, President of the DSA indicated that they are absolutely not interested in going
in the direction of the use of Custody Services Officers. He noted that the Sheriff hires a
significant number of Deputy Sheriffs as lateral transfers from other law enforcement
agencies. These officers are already fully trained. Therefore, the alleged training savings
are not likely to be as great as projected. He also suggested that if the use of the Custody
Services Officer actually resulted in more turnover training costs could actually increase.
He concluded that there are better ways for the Deputy Sheriffs to do their job.
Commander Larry Simmons clarified that the Sheriff's report on the use of Custody
Services Officers would cost more money; it is not intended to be a cost savings proposal.
While the first 14 Custody Services Officer positions are projected to be offset with savings
in the overtime budget, all positions added beyond that will cost additional money.
Henry Clarke, General Manager of Local 1 stated that only four counties still use Deputy
Sheriffs exclusively in detention facilities. He suggested that unless the Board of
Supervisors does something to reduce the cost of Deputy Sheriffs, the Board will have no
money left with which to do anything else. Mr. Clarke suggested that the projected salary
for the Custody Services Officer is too high, compared with Public Services Officers. Mr.
Clarke indicated that Local 1 proposes that there be only one Sergeant in charge at a
detention facility on the swing and graveyard shifts and perhaps more than one on the day
shift. However, all Deputy Sheriffs should be out on the street. His proposal would be to
use Correctional Officers to substitute for Deputy Sheriffs. Mr. Clarke suggested that this
could be done over a period of time through attrition. He did not advocate the layoff of any
Deputy Sheriffs. Mr. Clarke suggested that the Board might save upwards of$3 million
a year in this manner. He also noted that it would be cost effective to hire more adult
probation officers.
Sheriff Rupf noted that his department is unique in that they have an innovative home
detention program and are often "ahead of the curve" in many areas. He emphasized
again that he would not willingly sit down and discuss reducing staffing of Deputy Sheriffs,
pointing out again that he does not have enough staff to get the job done properly now.
He also noted that the "savings" in his proposal come from reductions in future growth, not
in any reduction in current absolute dollars. The Sheriff also pointed out that Custody
Services Officers can deal directly with inmates, which Sheriff's Aides cannot do.
Jeff Kyle indicated that DSA had contacted all 58 counties in California and have
determined that 12 counties still use Deputy Sheriffs exclusively.
In answer to a question from Supervisor Rogers, the Sheriff indicated that he felt that the
suggested 15% differential between the salary of a Custody Services Officer and that of
a Deputy Sheriff should prove to be competitive. He again noted that he was willing to sit
down and talk about different ways to do the job and that he was not wedded to the
proposal regarding Custody Service Officers.
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that the County Administrator be directed to work with
the Internal Operations Committee on a plan for how additional funds should be spent if
a small additional amount of money could be made available. He also asked that there be
some exploration of where additional money might come from.
Supervisor Rogers indicated that he sees the issue somewhat differently. If detention
services can be provided less expensively then we should do it. The real question is
whether there are actual savings. The Board needs to have some alternatives available
when it is necessary to impose reductions on departments. He indicated that he was
intrigued by the Sheriff's willingness to discuss the possibility of changing the duties of
some classifications. Supervisor Rogers would only be interested in doing this as an
attrition conversion that did not involve layoffs of any current staff. He would like to see
the Sheriff and DSA discuss revising the duties of the Sheriff's Aide position.
4
I.O.- 3
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that we look at a four-year plan which would include
some conversion to other classifications as well as the addition of new staff. He also
indicated that he wanted to obtain data on the liability experience of other jurisdictions
which have used classifications other than Deputy Sheriffs to staff their detention facilities.
He is also interested in trying to determine how the amount of overtime paid in this County
compares with the amount of overtime paid in other jurisdictions.
cc: County Administrator
Sheriff-Coroner
Director of Human Resources
Risk Manager
Jeff Kyle, President, DSA
Henry Clarke, General Manager, Local 1
Foreman, 1995-96 Grand Jury
5
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Contra Costa County
Administration Division
646-2402
Date: October 12, 1995
To: Internal OperatiCntte
Supervisor MarSupervisor JimFrom: Warren E R p
Subject: Corrects icers
Mr. Batchelor, in a response to the Board of Supervisors on July 11 , 1995, recognized
issues raised on both sides of whether or not to use Correctional Officers. His response
shared our concern that, while there was a potential to save money, there were serious
transitional and operational concerns.
The issue of Correctional Officers has been around for many years, and I believe it is our
responsibility to explore the development of a new class of Custody Service Officer
(CSO), as prescribed in Penal Code 831 .
However, at the same time, I have my constitutional responsibility to operate a safe
detention system while resources dedicated to public safety are already at an
unsatisfactory level. I can agree to discuss Custody Services Officers, I cannot allow
staffing to further diminish by converting Deputy Sheriffs to a new classification.
As Sheriff, I am willing to explore an opportunity to develop cost savings, but it is
important that the Board explore cost-saving opportunities by looking at all classifications
throughout the county; considering private security vs Public Service Officer, and
contracting for fleet maintenance with private enterprise vs GSD mechanics. If the issue
is purely financial, I believe the entire county work force, not just Deputy Sheriffs
assigned to the jails, should be considered for reduction to a lower paid classification.
Members of my office, in all classifications are stretched to an unacceptable limit while
the demands on our system have grown. Inmate population is escalating and currently
averaging 1590 inmates per day, an increase of 330 per day since July 1994. Fewer
employees and an escalating inmate population exacerbates the problems and warns
against any experimentation with our Deputy Sheriffs, who have earned our detention
system a nationally-recognized reputation for excellence.in jail operations.
The attached PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE POSITION OF CUSTODY SERVICE
OFFICER, dated September 27, 1995, explores the development of a new classification
as defined in Section 831 of the Penal Code and, I believe, provides a necessary balance
of issues and needs.
A most important point is that any classification changes must involve our DSA as a full
partner.
WER/jmw
Attachment
cc: P. Batchelor
D.S.A.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH
THE POSITION
OF
CUSTODY SERVICES OFFICER
(October 10, 1995)
Executive Summary
The Sheriff is responsible for law enforcement in the County, and specifically the safe and
constitutional operation of the County Detention System (per California Government Code
26605, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 15 [Minimum Jail Standards], California
Penal Code Section 4000).
Although willing to jointly explore any opportunity to develop cost-savings, the Sheriff could not
accept any reduction of currently authorized Deputy Sheriff positions. Staff of all classifications
are stretched to the breaking point and have become fewer while the demands on the system have
grown immensely. An escalating inmate population, currently averaging 1590 per day (+330
inmates since July 1994) only exacerbates the problem.
Any classification developed, whether it be a Correctional Officer series, a Deputy Sheriff II,
or other, would be acceptable only if the position(s) were supplemental to existing Deputy Sheriff
positions.
Sheriff Rupf directed staff to review the issues involved and develop a proposal within the
context of law and accepted operational standards.
Staff Recommendation and Findings
Recommendation
• A non-sworn Custody Officer classification, defined by existing law - 831 P.C., be
created to augment the Deputy Sheriff staff assigned to the Detention Facilities.
Findings
• It is estimated that the Detention Facilities require an additional 51 custody positions to
be properly staffed.
• The training costs for an entry level Custody Officer could be$16,000 less than the costs
of an entry level Deputy Sheriff.
• The ongoing annual savings of a Custody Officer could be at least $10,000 per officer
when compared to a Deputy Sheriff.
• A Custody Officer provides greater flexibility than a Sheriff's Aide and should replace
that classification.
• The first fourteen (14) Custody Services Officers could pay for themselves by offsetting
Deputy Sheriff overtime expended for double staffing overcrowded housing units in the
Martinez Detention Facility: This savings will be realized when the Custody Services
Officer is fully trained approximately thirteen (13) weeks after hiring.
1
x
Historical Summary
The County Administrator's Office, in 1985, prepared a report entitled "Detention Staffing
Analysis Study"; that was reviewed by the Internal Operations Committee and the full Board.
On December 10, 1985 a Board Order was passed indicating: "Board does not support total
replacement of Deputy Sheriffs in the County's detention facilities with Correctional Officers ...
and directs the County Administrator to do further analysis of feasibility of using non-sworn
personnel in Detention that do not have as their primary responsibility that of supervising
inmates."
In July 1987 Mark Morris prepared a report entitled "A Report on Detention Staffing the Contra
Costa County Jails", and recommended against wholesale change in the staffing of the jails. He
proposed development of a Technician Classification in the Sheriff's Department. The Board
of Supervisors continued to support and endorse the policy of utilizing Deputy Sheriffs in direct
supervision detention roles and approved in concept two new civilian classes of Sheriff's Aide
and Sheriff's Specialist. The County Administrator was directed to continue to explore additional
non-sworn positions as part of the planning for the West County Justice Center.
In October 1988, Hughes, Heiss and Associates was retained by the County to update the
previous staffing studies and report on new developments in the area of detention staffing. Their
report (February 14, 1989) concluded the risks associated with conversion to Correctional
Officers exceed the potential cost savings, however comparable cost savings could be achieved
by continuing to civilianize support positions in the Sheriff's Department.
Since 1987 thirty-four (34) positions, twenty-four (24) Sheriffs Aides and ten (10) Specialists,
have been civilianized in the jail system, in lieu of additional Deputy Sheriffs.
In February 1995, the Finance Committee was again presented with a report on the feasibility
of utilizing Correctional Officers in the Detention system.
The Board of Supervisors, upon reviewing the report, raised several questions and asked for
responses from employee organizations, the Sheriff and Personnel.
Mr. Batchelor's response to the Board of Supervisors dated July 11, 1995 indicated that valid
issues were raised on both sides of whether or not to use Correctional Officers in our Detention
system. He indicates there is a potential to save money, but also concluded there are serious
transitional and operational concerns. Among other issues, conversion would involve the
cooperation of the various employee organizations and the Sheriff in order to be successful.
2
Introduction
Debates and studies have addressed the issue of whether local detention systems should be staffed
with Correctional Officers, Deputy Sheriffs or a combination of both. The basis for the
discussion, while philosophical at times, was dramatically focused on budgetary considerations.
Claims of significant financial savings were touted as the benefit of conversion to civilian
positions.
A major issue, during the development of any personnel classification is addressing adequate
standards for selection and training; plus the assurance of adequate compensation, benefits and
employment opportunity. To do otherwise, is a recipe for failure.
Contra Costa Sheriff's Office has employed Deputy Sheriffs to perform Patrol, Detention and
other duties for many years, and has received National recognition for its innovations in jail
management; and the absence of successful inmate litigation, either Federally or locally.
For many years, now more than ever, the Detention System has been seriously understaffed, with
large sums of money being spent on overtime just to meet the system's minimum staffing needs.
The West County Booking Area remains unavailable due to a shortage of staff.
As a result of decreased staffing and increased inmate population the County could choose to
establish a non-sworn classification with Safety Retirement to augment the current Deputy Sheriff
staff working the Detention System as defined in 831 P.C. as a Custody Services Officer and
which would offer the following benefits:
• Training requirements for Custody Services Officers are not as rigid or as expensive as
for the Deputy Sheriff classification, however, the reduced training requirements would
not compromise any Minimum Jail Standards (MJS) or Standards of Training for
Corrections (STC) because of the training mandated for Custody Services Officers by the
State of California.
• The civilian positions previously created (Sheriff's Aide and Specialist) have not been
successful as support positions in the jail because of the limitations on interactions
between the Sheriff's Aides or Specialists and inmates. This new position provides that
flexibility, at a substantial savings when compared to the Deputy Sheriff's position.
• The Custody Services Officer's training time is significantly less than a Deputy Sheriff's,
thereby allowing an employee to be hired, trained and on line filling a vacant position
much sooner.
• Custody Services Officers will work under the direction of a Deputy Sheriff and, when
assigned to a housing unit requiring more than one officer, will work under the direct
supervision of a Deputy Sheriff.
3
Detention Division Staffing
In May 1992, the County Jail System was authorized twelve (12) Lieutenants, thirty-three (33)
Sergeants, two-hundred twenty (220) Deputy Sheriffs and thirty-one(3 1) Sheriff's Aides-a total
of 296 employees (265 sworn and 31 Sheriffs Aides).
Driven by economics, in 1995 the Division has been reduced to five (5) Lieutenants, twenty-five
(25) Sergeants and one-hundred ninety-eight(198)Deputy Sheriffs and twenty-four(24) Sheriff's
Aides - a total of 252 employees (228 sworn and 24 Sheriff's Aides).
The average inmate daily population in May 1992 was 1426; September 1995 it is 1590.
1992 and 1994 Comparison of Authorized Staff
Lieutenants Sergeants Deputy Aides Population
1992 12 33 220 31 -1426
1994 5 25 198 24 1590
-7 -8 -22 -7 + 164
Detention Division
Current Authorized Staffing by Unit
Deputy Sheriffs Aides
MDF 90 MDF 12
WCDF 64 WCDF 9
MCDF 19
CAB 3 CAB 3
Transportation 16
Classification 6
198 24
4
c.
Martinez Detention Facility
The Martinez Detention Facility was opened in 1981, however shortly after opening, the Facility
experienced overcrowding.
The Martinez Detention Facility is authorized 90 Deputy Sheriffs, which is marginally adequate
to staff the facility (including relief positions). If double staffing, due to overcrowding and
MOU agreements, is required ninety (90) Deputies is not adequate.
Double staffing, two Deputies on a housing unit, occurs on Swing Shift when the inmate
population exceeds 64 on a unit. -
When the inmate population exceeds approximately 600, it becomes necessary to double staff the
general population housing units. The double staffing of the housing units requires seven (7)
Deputy Sheriffs more than the authorized ninety (90) or a total of ninety-seven (97). The double
staffing is currently provided by Deputy Sheriffs working overtime.
West County Detention FacilitX
The 1990 Integrated Security Report for the WCDF suggested that proper staffing for the West
County Detention Facility should be:
Line Deputies 92 Line Aides 20
Housing/Booking Booking/Visiting
Escort/Visiting Clothing Room/
Central Control
Classification 3
Transportation 12 _
107 20
It was established by -the Integrated Security Plan that 107 Deputy Sheriffs and 20
Aides/Dispatchers would be required to operate the Facility once completely opened.
Even without the controversial Booking Area open no fewer than 82 Deputies and 14 Aides
would need to be assigned.
5
t
Despite the staff projections by Integrated Security the West County Detention Facility is,
however, currently authorized:
Aides 9
Deputies (Line) 64
Deputies (Transportation) 3
Prior to the opening of the West County Detention Facility it was estimated that ten (10)
additional Transportation Deputies would be required to transport prisoners between the facilities
and to court. Only three Deputies have been added to the Transportation Unit as a result of
opening the West County Detention Facility.
Staffing Requirements
To operate the Detention System as designed at rated capacity requires approximately 231 Deputy
Sheriffs and 35 Sheriff's Aides or a total of 266 Deputy Sheriff/Aides. The difference between
the actual number of Deputy Sheriffs and Aides required, 266, and the number presently
authorized, 222, is 44 positions.
Again, the issue of double staffing at the Martinez Detention Facility as a result of overcrowding
must be addressed in our staffing needs. By MOU, an additional seven (7) Deputies are required
to double staff Martinez Detention Facility housing Units, or a total of.fifty-one (5 1) additional
positions are required.
The difference between the authorized strength and the required strength can be made up of a
non-sworn Custodial Officer.
Comparison of Authorized Staff to Required Staff
Required When Required When Authorized Additional
Not Doubled MDF Doubled Staff Required
Deputy Sheriff 231 Deputy Sheriff 238 Deputy Sheriff 198 Deputy Sheriff 40
Sheriff's Aide 35 Sheriffs Aide 35 Sheriff's Aide 24 Sheriff's Aide 11
6
Double Staffed Housing Unit Savings
As a result of overcrowding in the Martinez Detention Facility inmate housing units A, B, C and
E are staffed with two Deputy Sheriffs on Swing Shift each day and on Day Shift on Saturday
and Sunday.
Staffing levels have not been increased to account for the doubled housing units. The extra staff
is provided by Deputy Sheriffs on overtime.
The Intake housing unit is staffed by two Deputies at all times regardless of the count.
The combination of the second Deputies assigned to the general population housing units and the .
second Deputies assigned to the Intake housing unit equal approximately 2036 hours of staff time
per month.
If the second officer on each of these housing units was a custody officer then approximately
2036 hours of Deputy Sheriff overtime could be saved each month.
The following is an analysis of the cost of a Custody Services Officer at mid-sten working
straight time as the second officer on the double staffed housing units and a mid-range salary
Deputy Sheriff working the same housing units on overtime.
• Deputy Sheriff overtime rate at mid-range is $33.35 per hour.
• The cost of 2036 overtime hours for a Deputy Sheriff at mid-range salary is
$67,900 per month, or $814,800 per year.
• The $67,900 will pay for fourteen (14) Custody Services Officers including
benefits.
• Fourteen (14) Custody Services Officers provide 2422 hours of coverage each
month, based on an average 173 hour month.
• The first fourteen (14) Custody Services officers hired will offset more than 2036
hours of Deputy Sheriff overtime, in effect paying for themselves.
• At the mid-range salary and benefits fourteen (14) Custody Services Officers cost
approximately $791,000 per year.
7
Sheriffs Aide vs. Custody Services Officer
The job classification of Sheriff's Aide was created to permit a non-sworn staff member to
perform tasks previously performed by sworn personnel, however the duties were too narrowly
defined. The Aides replaced authorized Deputy positions but were not unable to handle inmates.
The loss of flexibility by converting Deputy Sheriff positions to Sheriff's Aides has led to
extreme difficulty in staffing and managing the facilities/inmate population.
As Aides may not search, supervise or escort an inmate, if an inmate needs to be moved within
a Facility or searched upon entry to the Facility and no Deputy Sheriff is available, the task must
be postponed even though a Sheriff's Aide is available.
A Custodial Officer with a much broader range of responsibilities could replace the Sheriff's
Aides in the Detention Facilities with the qualified Sheriff's Aides transitioned into the Custodial
Officer classification. The issue of the remaining Aides would be subject to meet and confer or
addressed administratively.
Custody Services Officer - Deputy Sheriff Relationship
The Custody Services Officer will work under the direction of a Deputy Sheriff. An example
of this relationship is the Intake process (Booking). Under the direction of a Deputy Sheriff
assigned to the Booking Area Custody Services Officers will:
• Search arrestees
• Book, fingerprint and photograph arrestees
• Dress out arrestees
Under the direction, not necessarily direct supervision of a Deputy Sheriff, Custody Services
Officers will make the internal jail movement of inmates from housing unit to housing unit or
from housing unit to court holding.
Under the direction of a Deputy Sheriff, Custody Services Officers will provide inmate
supervision in the medical and dental clinics.
On those housing units requiring two officers, one of the officers will be a Custody Services
Officer working at the direction and under the immediate supervision of a Deputy Sheriff.
As Custody Services Officers replace Sheriff's Aides the Custody Services Officers will become
the Central Control Room operators, working at the direction of the Shift Sergeant.
8
Description of Employee
A "Custodial Officer", after receiving the State required core academy of approximately 200
hours plus in-house training, could assume many of the responsibilities of Deputies currently in
Detention Division.
Typically, these duties may include:
• Booking
• Dressouts
• Searching
• Inmate work crew supervision
• Transportation Unit desk position
• Supplement the primary officer on double housing units
• Internal escort
• Inmate supervision, clinics, etc.
• Central Control Room operator
The classification of Sheriff's Aide would be eliminated through attrition, or agreed upon
method, with the current Aide incumbents, who meet Custody Officer qualifications, being given
priority consideration to convert to the new position.
A complete job description for Custody Services Officer would have to be developed by Human
Resources and the Sheriff's Office.
9
Savin2s
Sala
If the salary of the non-sworn custodial officer is assumed to be 15 percent below Deputy
Sheriff, the estimated annual savings per officer would be $10,000.
Personnel Strategy Salary Benefits Total Annual Savings Per
Mid-Range % Amount Cost Officer
DEPUTY $3846 44% $1692 $66,500
NON-SWORN/SAFETY $3270 44% $1438 $56,500 $10,000
RETIREMENT
Current Detention Staff
Salary Ranges
Deputy Sheriff - Recruit $2606
Deputy Sheriff $3489 - $4241
Sheriff's Specialist $2664 - $3238
Sheriff s Aide $2214 - $2691
Proposed Custody
Officer Salary Range
$2966 - $3114 - $3270 - $3433 - $3604
Training
Deputy Sheriff
A Deputy Sheriff attends a police Academy for five months at a Recruit salary of$2606/month
plus benefits. The Deputy then enters a Facility Training Program that requires approximately
two months to complete. During the two months Jail Training Program the Deputy's salary is
$3489 per month. The total training time for a Deputy Sheriff is about seven months.
10
Custodial Officer
A Custody Officer will receive five weeks of Academy training and eight weeks of in-house
training. The total training time for a Custody Officer will be three months (thirteen (13)
weeks).
The difference in training costs for an entry level Deputy Sheriff and an entry level Custody
Officer is approximately $16,000 per position.
Training Costs Comparison - Deputy Sheriff and Custody Officer
Personnel Academy Academy Jail Jail Benefits Total Training
Time Salary Training Training Training Cost
Time Salary Costs Difference
Per Officer
Deputy 22 weeks $2606 8 weeks $3489 44% $28,800
30 weeks
Non-Swom 5 weeks $2966 8 weeks $2966 44% $12,800 $16,000
Safety 13 weeks
(3 months)
Each class of employee is required to attend 24 hours per year of STC approved training.
11
Recommended Plan of Action
• Identify cost associated with the establishment of a Custody Services Officer
classification, to provide sufficient staffing complement versus additional Deputies;
identify and justify number of positions.
• County Human Resource Department, in conjunction with Sheriff's Office, will develop
Custody Services Officer job description:
• Standards • Testing Procedure
• Salary/Benefit • Recruiting
• 832 P.C. Certificate
• Meet and Confer
• Representatives
• Salary/Benefits
• Job Description
• Eliminate Job Classes
•. Develop four (4) year budget plan to hire a total of fifty-one (51) Custody Services
Officers.
The following is a four (4) year budget plan to hire a total of fifty-one (51) Custody
Services Officers.
For comparison purposes, the costs of hiring the same number of Deputy Sheriffs over
four (4) years is provided.
Once trained, the first fourteen (14) Custody Services Officers will offset the cost of
Deputy Sheriff overtime in an amount equal to or greater than the cost of the Custody
Services Officers.
12
• Cost Comparison of Hiring Fifty-One (51) Custody Services Officers Over Four Years
Compared to Hiring An Additional Fifty-One (51) Deupty Sheriffs Over Four Years
Fiscal Year Custody Services Officer Deputy Costs Funding Source
Costs (For Comparison)
1996-97 After initial
14 new $ 735,400 $ 755,000 training
Overtime savings
1997-98 Approximately
13 new 682,900 700,800 $800,000
14 at mid-range 791.000 931.000 Overtime Savings
$1,473,900 $1,631,800 $674,000
General Fund
1998-99 Approximately
12 new 630,400 646,800 1$800,000
27 at mid-range 1,525.500 $1.795.500 From Overtime
$2,155,900 $2,442,300 Savings
$1,355,900
General Fund
1999-2000 Approximately
12 new 630,400 $ 646,800 $800,000
39 at mid-range $2,203.500 2,593.500 From Overtime
2,833,500 3,240,300 Savings
$2,033,500
General Fund
The small first year salary savings between a Custody Services Officer and Deputy
Sheriff is a result of a Deputy spending five months in an academy at a Recruit salary of
$2606 per month. The Custody Services Officer will however be available for work
approximately four months earlier than a Deputy Sheriff as a result of a shorter
Academy. The Custody Services Officer will begin to offset Deputy Sheriff overtime
approximately three (3) months after being hired.
Training
A. Develop Custody Services Officer Academy with Los Medanos College or:
B. Join with Alameda Sheriff's Office for combined training or:
C. Develop in-house Sheriff's Office Academy and certify with Standards of Training
for Corrections (STC).
D. Jail Training Officer Program
13
§ 831. Custodial officers t
(a) A custodial officer is a public officer, not a peace officer, employed by a law enforcement agency of
a city or county who has the authority_ and responsibility for maintaining custody of prisoners and .
performs tasks related to the operation of a local detention facility used for the detention of persons
usually pending arraignment or upon court order either for their own safekeeping or for the specific
purpose of serving a sentence therein.
(b) A custodial officer shall have no right to carry or possess firearms in the performance of his or her
prescribed duties.
(c) Each person described in this section as a custodial officer shall, within 90 days following the date
of the initial assignment to the position, satisfactorily complete the training course specked in Section
832. In addition, each person designated as a custodial officer shall,within * * * one ,year following the
date of the initial assignment as a custodial officer, have satisfactorily * * * met the minimum selection
and training standards prescribed by the Board of Corrections pursuant to Section 6035. Persons
designated as custodial officers, before the expiration of the * * * 90-day and one-year periods described
a
in this subdivision, who have not yet.completed the required training, may perform the duties of a
custodial officer only while under the direct supervision of a peace officer as described in Section 830.1,
who has completed the training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training,
or a custodial officer who has completed the training required in this section. b
Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks
(d) At any time 20 or more custodial officers are on duty, there shall be at least one peace officer, as
i described in Section 830.1, on .duty at the same time to supervise the performance of the custodial
officers.
(e) This section shall not be construed to confer any authority upon any custodial officer except while
on duty. `
(f) A custodial officer may use reasonable force in establishing and maintaining custody of persons 1
delivered to him or her by a law enforcement officer; may make arrests for misdemeanors and felonies
within the local detention facility pursuant to a duly issued warrant; may release without further criminal
process persons arrested for intoxication; and may release misdemeanants on citation to appear in lieu of
or after booking.
(Amended by Stats.1991, c.1100 (A.B.2022), § 2.)
i!
Historical and Statutory Notes
1991 Legislation rily complete the jail operations.course" in the second
The 1991 amendment, in subd. (c)p substituted"one. sentence, and substituted "90-day and one-year" for"90-. 1!
year" for "180 days" and "have satisfactorily met the and 180-day"in the third sentence; and made the section !'
minimum selection and training standards"for"satisfacto- gender neutral.
Cross References
Correctional personnel defined, see§ 6031.5.
_ r
Library References.
California Jury'Instructions—Criminal [CALJIC).
.-Notes of Decisions
Law enforcement agency 2 enforcement agency." People v. Garcia (App.5 Dist.1986)
Peace officers 3 223 Ca1.Rptr. 884, 178 C.A.3d 887.
Public officer 1 3. Peace officers
Director of county department of correction was pre-
eluded from designating custodial officers of jail as"peace
1. Public officer officers" permitted by statute to carry weapons in course
of their duties; action conflicted.with statute providing
County correctional officer whose basic duty was trans- that custodial officers were not peace officers. County of
portation of inmates to and from court and medical ap- Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n of Santa Clara
pointments was "public officer" rather than "peace offi- County, Inc. (1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 53, 3 CalAth 873, 838
cer;" officer was not within designations of Pen.C. H 830 P.2d 781.
et seq. People v. Garcia (App.5 Dist.1986) 223 Ca1.Rptr. Act of director of county department of correction, in
884, 178 C.A.3d 887. designating custodial officers of jail as peace officers,was
matter of statewide concern, as required in order for -
2. Law enforcement agency action to be deemed in violation of state statute prohibit-
County department of corrections established.pursuant ing use of custodial officials as law enforcement officers.
to Gov.C. § 23013 and thereby vested with same authority County of Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n of Santa
as county sheriff with respect to institutional punishment, Clara County, Inc. (1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 53,3 Cal.4th 873,
care, treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners, was "law 838 P.2d 781.
.. S
FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS IN THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DETENTION SYSTEM
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
County Administrator's Office
Carol Kizziah
Mark Moms
Craig Miller
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................................. I
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STUDIES .............. ................................ 4
STATEWIDETRENDS ...................................................................................................6
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUDY UPDATE 1994 ....................................................7
LEGAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ................................................................ 16
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 1'. `
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the''past"seven"years, several`"`studies'`diseussed'lhe� feasibility;°of converting-Contra Costa
County detention Deputy Sheriff positions to Correctional Officer classifications. -In each of these
reports, ,the conclusion was that although such a change could reduce budgets (at least in the short
run), the organizational and morale costs would be high"=The`following:report revisits these issues,
Costs. Table 1 summarizes rough estimates,of the total salary=and benefits costs for three staffing
strategies (at today's'staffing`levels arid°in"today's"dollars):.;-`(iiy cetauung Deputy tSheriff staff, (b):,
using Correctional Officers,(COs),; with:safety;retirement;benefits,....and.(c) employing COs without
safety benefits. As shown in Table 1, staffing costs for a CO system would be at least $2 million per .,
year lower than for'Deputy'Sheriffs if'the system°were-,fully timplemented'.ti (The;transition, o:,full
implementation would likely require several years.) Costs of current civilian personnel assigned to
detention should remain the same under a CO system.
Table 1: Staffing(salary and benefits)Costs Comparison*
Personnel Salary Benefits Total Difference
Strategy (mid-range) % Amount Annual Cost** (from sworn)**
Sworn $3879/mo 44.4% $1722/mo $13, 308,000 -----
CO(with safety) $3297*** 44.4% $1464 $11,312,000 -$1,996,000
CO(without safety) $3297*** 37.5%****$1236 $10,770,000 -$2,538,000
* These are costs for 198 detention positions. Costs do not include sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and also exclude
support and program personnel. These costs also do not include recruitment, training, overtime, and other costs
associated with staffing. If the excluded costs were included, the differential between the Deputy and CO system costs
would be greater than shown here.
** Total annual costs and cost differences are rounded to the nearest thousand
*** CO salary costs are assumed to be 15 percent below Deputy salaries, although a larger differential may be
justifiable. Data later in this report suggests that the differential between Deputies and COs in other counties averages
more than 15 percent. Moreover, Contra Costa County deputies have the highest pay scale among the counties
surveyed-
For
urveyedFor purposes of the estimates here, we use Contra Costa County 1994-95 actual safety and non-safety benefit
percentages.
' This is the amount of salary savings for the conversion of Deputy Sheriffs to Correctional Officers at the current mid-
range salary levels and at the current level of detention staffing. The actual savings during any given year Would vary
depending on the salary steps and levels of the actual employees at any given time. When the County could realize the
full amount of this savings would depend on how the County decided to phase the conversion(most likely through
attrition as vacancies occur in the jail and field),and probably would be at least a five to seven year period.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional-Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page.2.
Trends. The clear trend in California is toward use of Correctional Officers in jails. Contra Costa is
one of only seven counties still relying exclusively on Deputies in the jails.
Data on ten selected counties suggests, further, that Deputy and. Correctional Officer salaries have
increased at roughly the same rate during recent years; the salary difference between Deputies and
Correctional,Officer&has�remained aboutAosame.,,.In.most established CO-staffed systems, COs do
have safety retirement.
Most systems we.sdrveyed,:report-few,difficulties tin recruiting and retaining �COs. Fresno and Kern--
are exceptions; they experienced higher turnover, as COs' left because 6f'Ca1iforniiDepartment-bf
Corrections hiring,related to"prison expansion. projects .in their areas.. Ventura reports losing large
t.
numbers-of civifia"ervice;technicians to-higher paying CO,positions in-SanWBarbara-County:- 2
Advantages and Aisadvantages.,F,,Q4r,survey yiplded mixed comments 'ad ages,and
_Fpgardip4
he vant
disadvantages of using COs. Correctional Officers are less costly. In addition, several responses
indicated that COs were preferable for jails because they have job stability; Deputies tend to rotate
out of the jail just when they are becoming experienced and skilled at correctional duties. On the
other hand, some respondents preferred Deputies because they afford greater flexibility for
management in deployment. It was also indicated that the experience in the jail improves performance
on the street when Deputies rotate out of their initial jail assignments.
Issues for implementation. In those systems in which the conversion from Deputies to Correctional
Officers has occurred most smoothly, the change took place with the support and cooperation of the
Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association.
If Contra Costa.County were to shift to Correctional Officers, several implementation issues would
need to be resolved.
• What would be the transition period and phasing strategy for the changeover? What Job
protections would be afforded Deputy Sheriffs?
• Would COs receive safety retirement? 4850 coverage?
• Would associated functions also be converted, such as classification and transportation
units?
• Would there be career ladders for Correctional Officers--i.e., Correctional Sergeants,
Lieutenants, etc.?
• Plans for recruitment, screening, and training would have to be worked out.
• What employee protections would be afforded to the Correctional Officers? Would they
fall under the Peace Officer Bill of Rights? What bargaining unit would represent.theni?
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 3.
INTRODUCTION
The appropriateness of utilizing Correctional Officers in the detention system in Contra Costa County
was referred by the Board to the County Administrator during the FY 1994-95 budget hearings.
In the last seven years, Contra Costa County has completed two major studies assessing the feasibility
of utilizing Correctional Officers in the detention.system._ Use of non sworn officers in detention has
received close scrutiny not only in Contra Costa but throughout the United_States.' The issues revolve
around the potential to save,petsonziel costs through Iess costly=#employee classifications versus the
experience of many jurisdictions which,have .-conyerted to Correctional Qflxcersresulting in higher
,. r
levels'of staff turnover,overtime and-trainingYddsts'compared to Deputy Sheriffs
This report will summarize the findings from the two previous'studies, provide updated detention
staffing information from jurisdictions somewhat comparable to Contra Costa.County, and more
detailed information from three counties -- Fresno, San Diego, Santa Clara -- with experience in
changing from one classification to another in their detention system.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional kers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 4.
SUMMARY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STUDIES
Report on Detention Staffing in the Contra Costa County Jails, Carol Kizziah and Mark Morris,
July 1, 1987.
This report,discussedways to manage detention staffing costs through staffing reductions and
classification changes, but recommended against'any changes to.core custody.staff or,procedures. In
the short run, it would have been possible to realize some savings through the hiring of Correctional
Officers but the creation of serious iiislocations in the ShedWs Depaitment;..the,difficulty in,recruiti%g
qualified personnel in this geographrc'area if the`salary level was.reduced;.ana,:the trend toward parity
ofsaldetention staffing atte Shenff and Correctional Officer did,not.warrant large scale reform in}F-the ;
of sal between De uty t.kr.t ;.Y
p. . , m. Co`insuitaiits'-foutid`the-:Sheriff's:FDepartment.to,,be exceptionally well
managed and that the Detention Division, in particular.,was exemplary.
Recommendations included:
• Conversion of 35 Deputy Sheriff positions to paraprofessional "technician"
classification for routine and non-supervisory functions throughout the Department which would
provide substantial savings and avoid serious disruption to the Department. (Current status is 24
Sheriff's Aides and 9 Sheriff Specialist positions work in the Department and are assigned to the
Custody Alternative Bureau,booking, central control, crime lab).
• Explore ways to streamline the recruitment and training of new recruits to help keep
overtime costs as low as possible. (The Sheriff now has new Deputies spend 33 months in detention
prior to sending them to patrol for field training.)
Analysis of the Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Detention System, Contra Costa,
California,Hughes•Heiss&Associates, Inc.,Management Consultants, January 18, 1989,
This report described the advantages and disadvantages gleaned from original research to
utilizing Correctional Officers. Their conclusion was that, "comparable savings may be achieved by
continuing to civilianize support positions in the Sheriff's Department."
The advantages described were:
• Salary and fringe benefit costs are lower for Correctional Officers. Based on a 22
county survey of California Sheriff's Departments where both Deputies and Correctional Officers were
employed, Correctional Officer's salaries were between 80 percent to 90 percent of that paid Deputy
Sheriffs. Further savings can be achieved by not offering costly safety retirement to Correctional
Officers, however, most counties offered safety retirement to Correctional Officers.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 5.
• There may be a reduction in the time it takes to recruit civilians. Correctional
Officers are less thoroughly`screened than Deputy Sheriffs in many jurisdictions due to'a more limited
scope of job duties.
• Training costs are less for Correctional Officers. Both entry level training and in-
service training'are'less tiri e'consum'hgg"arid less costly for Correctional Officers than for Deputy
Sheriffs due to more limited duties.
•Hourly cost of overtime is less for Correctional Officers.
• Turnover rates may be higher for civilians but associated costs may be lower.
Typically, civilian turnover levels are higher than for sworn personnel. Difference relates generally to
compensation and:potential career..path;for..sworn:staff. Costs associated with new staff recruitment
and training may be far higher for Deputy Sheriffs than for Correctional Officers. Higher turnover
rates may still result in potential cost savings.
The disadvantages described were:
• Salary and fringe benefit differences are eroding. Correctional Officer salary levels in
1985 have risen from 79 percent of Deputy Sheriff salaries in survey group to 84 percent in 1988. In
addition, almost all counties surveyed provided Correctional Officers and Deputy Sheriffs identical
benefit packages.
• Recruiting Correctional Officers will be highly competitive. In 1989, new and
expanded prison facilities and newly opened Northern California detention facilities required
approximately 6,000 new Correctional Officers.
• Costs associated with high turnover rates may eliminate potential savings. In the
jurisdictions studied Correctional Officer turnover rates were much higher than turnover,rates for
Deputy Sheriffs. A nationwide survey at the time identified a 24 percent rate for Correctional Officers
compared to a turnover rate of 6.5 percent for Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs. The higher rate
was attributed to disparity in compensation, restricted career opportunities and recruitment standards.
A turnover rate of three times that of Deputy Sheriffs could lead to greater costs far training, overtime
and administrative costs for Correctional Officers even with a 10 percent to 20 percent lower salary.
The conclusion of this study was that the risks associated with conversion to Correctional Officers
exceeded that relatively small potential cost savings. The authors calculated a 1.5 percent personnel
cost savings (or slightly higher if all currently sworn supervisory and management staff in the County
detention system were civilianized), indicating that the risks of converting detention system staffing to
Correctional Officers exceeded the benefits and that comparable savings may be achieved by
continuing to civilianize support positions in the Sheriffs Department.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System- Pag6 6. '
STATEWIDE TRENDS
Representatives of the State Board of Corrections were contacted for information regarding trends in
detention staffing statewide.
There appears,10 be°'a'fairly'"significant trend toward I Correctional Officers since the last study
conducted in Contra Costa County (1989). In fact, there are only sevencounties in the State of
California that do not recruit Correctional Officers:
Alameda
Contra Costa
Sacramento
Tehema
Yuba
Monterey
(Yuba and Monterey have deputies in their jails but do not give them peace officer powers but recruits
do complete the POST exam.)
In 1987-88, 60 percent of the persons taking the core jail curriculum-entry level training course (2,249
total) were Deputy Sheriffs. In 1993-94, only 24 percent of the people taking the core jail course
(1,467 total) were Deputy Sheriffs. Of the 24 percent, the most significant numbers were from Los
Angeles, Riverside and Ventura. (Of the 3,000 L.A. County Sheriffs Department officers, 400 are
Correctional Officers.)
A number of counties have mixed systems. However, the trend is toward pure Correctional Officer
systems. San Diego has just completed conversion to a pure CO system. :They were able to complete
the conversion within two years because a number of their. Deputies leave to work in the police
department for higher pay, and the Sheriff took a strong leadership role in the conversion process.
San Diego is working on a career ladder. Imperial and Shasta have just gotten started toward
complete conversion. In our 1994 study update Kern, Riverside and San Joaquin indicated they were
moving toward a pure CO system. San Joaquin has started to recruit COs again after laying COs off
due to budget cuts.
Two counties have a Department of Corrections (Madera and Napa) and Probation operates the Santa
Clara County jails.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 7.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUDY UPDATE
Methodology
A survey was conducted in ten counties (including Contra Costa) updating information obtained for
the 1987 Report on Detention Staffing in Contra Costa Jai1s. Using the same counties in the,,1987 and
1994 studies for comparison purposes provided information on trends in jail staff classifications,
salaries and benefits,turnover and-,recruitment. .
At least three people were coritaefed in each county representing different agencies, e.g., Sheriff's
. Department, County AdministratWs Office and Personnel. The counties were selected because they
were similar in size and other�ideinographic" ariables to.,Contra Costa and/or they,were in close
rwdmi �Infonmation abo Jfthe'`"`stems studied is provided.-in:Table 2: Detention System
-geographic P tY SY P y
Population and Personnel Figures.
Pay Scale for Deputy Sheriff and Classification Supervising Inmates
Generally speaking functions performed in detention were similar for Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional
Officers. Deputies are the highest paid custody officers. In the ten.counties studied, current entry
level Deputy Sheriff salaries range from a high of $3,489/month in Contra Costa to a low of
$2,637/month in Ventura. Correctional Officer salaries ranged from $1,906/month in Fresno to
$2,838/month in Santa Clara. (See Table 3: Pay Scale for Deputy Sheriff and Classification
Supervising Inmates.)
For the counties surveyed,both Deputy Sheriff and Correctional Officers salaries have increased by 39
percent since 1986. Deputy Sheriff salaries increased from $2,172 in 1986 to $3,023 as of December
1994. The average salary for Correctional Officers increased from $1,669 in 1986 to $2,409 in 1994
(including Santa Clara County). For traditional Correctional Officers, the counties with the largest
change in salaries from 1986 to 1994 were Riverside (52% increase) and San Joaquin (53% increase).
The counties with the largest change in Deputy Sheriff salaries over the same time period were Contra
Costa (51% increase) and Alameda (53% increase). For counties using both Deputies and
Correctional Officers, the difference-.in salaries decreased slightly between 1986 and 1994. The
average CO salary, for counties with both classifications in 1986 and 1994, was 78 percent of
Deputies in 1986 and 80 percent of Deputies in 1994.
O'J ... Yitit� ..z+> t1Q b
p •`�jn O v1 t*w� 00 N M r!' Ch d; O ►.
(lr A •L, '• iz V1 t!1 ,�,n"KA %6 %L? '!•p=`�,`S�D
3
k6 d o o oa b o 0 0 0 \ \ c0 O.
fV. O y Oma" h l� O M N :� O Cl)
y ' hip hN hh httM E
4.
0
N0 E ;, :
t' t U
6r' G
c; w
O fA O M hM M 00 00
Q �' O a u0•'
.+ O
o c r- 00 N O h �tS�p O j
00 ` to
M N It - N .N.a .N.� .a.
p b
0
V d O
T d C ' d h O N N 00 e* h tQ .+ O
O Q OON 00 h O O h M
A ^' �' ..a N M � M M M.W tD O�., N M
d vy�i Q C, G
O O a O0 4D ►
H V O -14
G vi Ccf Td. d O
O
cS
W 1�. a C 00 10 %D ,� 00 M (� OA COC y
N N N d' M 16 - M N ra
SN..: .•r .-i tl; M N N N N N N O C/2 N crd� X 3
M '
cu
a> a� 0 v p 0
L OAS O . C y G
00
, h a%
O� O 0 0 r+ 2 .- l5. .y
tL) � Rt 00ca
B h Vl R7� V'1 01% +« et t- TJ y N .V ^` •O
� . OW N O 0% ON h N �-+' „�Yl E Q t i ".3' O w v
ii N'. •-i N•- «r N M
= V] a
aa. zs rr rn
O yx' O C t0
05
VSO ,'O O ,. _ M u..� O 'e!' O �+ ai M ,.,,, d '« •O
00 O tI] GT O 4? O
h 00 r st M M � O �D .. Q O
rot' O C4 _ O h "' O O
tlapq
C/} y U ul
- O
LO M y p Q
oo 00 C\ oo a` bq oo C\ 00 a� � w
o as rna_� a< rn � o rn 0\ cr. m rn rn oy:o. 0 0 0 v .� y
rr r+ iN .-y .-e :.,-tsw-t .-t .r •�„n .,�.c N _
:g . cj
T-ks. .2��a y Oy oy it
0
00 c3 'l7
O �•
O r
��
ea aREWW-
CIS Z Z Z42
Y
u y q C
a E � � z z zz
W Y N
a X
Vi 1-1
R � �
N N
R
vi v Pa ,
W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E,y d O R \ \ e \ o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o Y
a+ 00N c?' N Vl '7
d M M ITM M M t7 V' M V �' f+) M Vl M M
� d 5
�. . -n..w. CD a.
50 0
aaW am � N zz z00 rz 0 zzz o
00 to N IT 00 O\ M �o •-• •-' O N N .. V' V1
d V) V) V' —. 00 V' .-. V) 00 O O O% V) 00 V) . Vl to Q
M V) V1 �o O N %o l- N O% t? A O %o'V1 tp
N M N M M M N M M M M M M M N N
�.y EA 69 ffi 69 69 Vi fA fA"fA ffi 69 69 69 69 69 6e EIi 69
_.. ..._._pay ell 00 ..C) co
� !f Vl 00 .r en M, 00 M ko :0 M � — O
Q � � C; C\ O � IT co C4 C) %0 N0000 V) \00000
N py MN M NN NN NN MN MNN N N M
69 }.:64.., 69. le 64 64 69 69 64 69 64 69 64 69 69 69 64 6R N
V1 y
o
p � p � p �i � p � p O p
to O
0. 0 a� () u d o o o a O
Avoi A U AV A Avg AV AV U ASU
O
O
Z O m.
V � V
4! 0 R 1.01
O O O O O
u y o 'I 0 O N N
m M d'00 'IT M M N M k
a
w y
•� co
cc
d c ¢ ¢ o o ¢
O O y)
0
u kn 00
W4 N VV) N Ol N %o
a
U N oo O �. ") 0000 000 M A
'IT O O\ Q\ oo O N
M M M N N N M M N N G
G7 QI 69 69 64 64 64 69 64 69 69 69 Q
00)
Y
A w a a o a a a a a a a A
yr y N N N N N N U N N N
C1 C)
u q
� o
0
+� o
V Y xr
a
[ R V ? p O R N
V E
u C C R O
O L u R R R 73 u
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers-in the-Contra Costa County.Detention System..... ....._... . ...... . ....PaggjQ,.
Table 4: Deputy Sheriff and Classification Supervising Inmates
Chan zes in Detention Salaries: 1986- 19941
Amount Dep. Amount Deg.
Deputy Sheriff Sheriff ;
Non-Sworn Change from 1986 Sheriff 1994 Change from Exceeded Exceeds Non-
County 1994 Salary Salary 1986 Non-Sworn in Sworn in 1994 1
Alamedaz $2 141/mo 3 422/mo +$1,185 53.0% (+$1,281) '
Contra Costa - - $31489 +$1,179(51.00/0)
Fresno -$1,906 :: : +$229(13.7%), $1,094
..,$3,0()0 ;. +$864{40.0%): .. $459 '
Kern $2,937 +$88643.0%
( ), $492 $855.
Riverside $2,484 +$848(52.00/.) $2,917 +$778(36.30/.) $503 $433
Sacramento ($2,208) (+$482(28.0%)) $2,815 +$720(34.0%) $369 ($607)
San Joaquin $2,635 +$913 (53.0%) $3,051 +$798(35.00/.) $531 $416
(a) $2,838 (a)( )4 (a) (a) $445
Santa Clara' (b)($2,865) (b)(+$1,000(54%)) $3,283 +904(38.00/.) (b)$514 (b)($418)'
(c)($3,189) (c)(+$1,133(55%)) (c)$323 (c) ($94)
Solano $2,509 +$757(43.0%) $2,680 +$594(28.0%) $334 $171
(a)($1,826) (a)(+$270(17.2%))
Ventura$ (b)($1,815) (b)( ) $2,637 +$606(30.0%) $465 ($811)
Avera es6 $2.409 +$654(39.2 $3,023 +$851 39.2010 $464 $569
' All salaries are entry level.
2 Non-sworn is Sheriffs Technician which was not included in 1987. Deputy Sheriff II classification is used for 1987-
1994 comparison.
3 Santa Clara non-sworn: a)Correctional Officer b)Group Counselor II at women's work furlough c)Senior Group
Counselor at men's work furlough.
4 Santa Clara did not have Correctional Officers in 1986 so not included in calculation.
s Ventura non-sworn:a)Sheriff's Service Technician b)Correctional Service Officer I only at work furlough.
6 Only traditional Correctional Officers included in average salary calculations(Fresno,Kern,Riverside, San Joaquin,
Santa Clara, Solano).
Fdasi$ility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 11.
Benefits
The percent of base salary paid in benefits is higher for Deputy Sheriff's (41%) than traditional
Correctional Officers (38%).(See Table 5: Benefits Comparison.) Since 1986, there has been a four
percent increase in the percent of salary paid to Deputy Sheriffs and a 3.4 percent increase in amount
paid ,to traditional Correctional Officers. All Correctional Officers in this study, including those in
Fresno, Kern, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Solano, are members of.safety retirement.
Excluding Santa Clara, which did not have Correctional Officers in 1986;there is no change in safety
retirement. The Sheriff Service Technicians in Ventura are not members of safety retirement, which is
no .change from 1986. The percent paid in benefits is nearly equal in counties that use, both
Correcfional'Officers`and'Deputies. Some differences in incentive pay,did exist in counties that employ .
both:Deputies-and Coirectional;Of1'icers.`.In San Joaquin, Kern.and:Riverside,education or certificate
incentives were available to Deputies but not Correctional Officers.
Table 5: Benefits Comparison
Changes in Fri n a Benefits.as Percent of Salary: 1986-1994
1986 1994 1986 1994
Deputy Sheriff Deputy Sheriff Correctional Correctional
County Officer Officer
Alameda 30% 38% - (32%)
Contra Costa 40% 44% - -
Fresno 32% 32% 32% 32%
Kern 30% 37% 30% 37%
Riverside 42% 47% 42% 43%
Sacramento 41% 41% (22%) (33%)
San Joaquin 45% 40% 42% 40%
Santa Clara 53% 42% NA 42%
Solano 27% 35% 27% 31%
Ventura 34% 52% (26%) (32%)
Averages 37% 41% 35% 38%'
' Only Correctional Officers, not civilian classifications,are included in average. The percent for benefits for the Deputy
Sheriff classification in the same counties using traditional COs is 39 percent.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Pag&;l 2•}-
Turnover
Where information was available, it appears turnover rates have remained constant for Deputy
Sheriff's and dropped for Correctional Officers since the earlier study. The turnover rate for Deputy
Sheriff's in Contra Costa dropped from 6.5% in 1986 to five percent in 1994. In 1985, turnover rates
for Correctional Officers in Solano (8%) and Riverside (11%) were among the highest, of the counties
surveyed, but 1994 figures for both counties-,a're significantly lower, Solano' 0.7%) and Riverside
(4.9%), and almost equal to-than of Deputy Sheriff s.
In 1994,,the'major treasons,for'Deputy-Sheriff turnover were retirement, resignation, and jobs-with
oth6i-`,Iaiw!',enforceme £'-tigetiti6g,!17,ln: Alameda;:which had,the highest turnover rate (8%), Deptities.
ars e
work in the jails-,for,-fourt6ifiveye fbrebqJng,,g§igrto,patrol. An estimated five percent of
their turnover is due to Deputies taking,other4aw enforcement jobs to shorten the time spent working
in detention. (See--`Table :`Turnover' ;Rkw.,C6mpati.son.)
Counties with the highest turnover rate for Correctional Officers were Fresno(12%), and San Joaquin
(10%). Ventura's SSTs had the highest turnover rate for any classification supervising inmates(20%).
Half of the turnover rate is due to ihe.Sherifrs Service Technicians going to Santa Barbara for higher
paying Correctional Officer positions. (The county believes they end up paying training costs for Santa
Barbara Correctional Officers.) Fresno and Kern, were the only counties impacted by the California
Department of Corrections(CDC)hiring of Correctional Officers. Fresno had 14 Correctional Officers
take jobs with CDC in FY 1993-94 and they anticipate CDC recruitment of Correctional Officers will
only increase. Kern had four Correctional Officers leave for jobs with CDC but an additional 35-40
Correctional Officers currently have background checks in progress with CDC.
Solano and Santa Clara both have low turnover rates and reported no Correctional Officers leaving for
jobs with CDC. In San Joaquin, the high turnover rate is due to Correctional Officers leaving for
other law enforcement jobs,but none have gone to CDC.
If COs had a turnover rate close to Deputies in Contra Costa County there would be -a,significant
overtime savings. Absences of staff during the weeks of training are typically covered by re-allocating
staff and incurring overtime costs among the remaining staff. A reduction in training time would result
in lower costs because the trainees will be absent for less time and the overtime rate for the
Correctional Officers will be lower than it is for Deputies . For example, at the bottom step the hourly
overtime rate for a Deputy Sheriff in Contra Costa is $33.80. The hourly overtime rate for a
Correctional Officer in Contra Costa is estimated at $28.73. In 1986, the difference in training a
Deputy Sheriff($40,000) and a Correctional Officer($12,000)was estimated at $28,000 per position.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 13.
Table 6: Turnover Rate Comparison
County 1994 1994 C,r'
Deputy Sheriff Officer
Alameda 8% NA
Contra Costa 5%
Fresno S% 12%
Kern 5% 6%
Riverside 4.8% 4.4%
Sacramento 4%
San Joaquin* 7% 14°/a
Santa Clara - 3o/a
Solano 2.5% 1.7%
Ventura 5% (20%1)
Averages 5.1% 6.3%
Recruitment and Hiring Practices
All counties using Correctional Officers reported large numbers of applicants for open Correctional
Officer positions. Santa Clara recently had 2,400 applicants for 34 open Correctional Officer positions.
One county did report, that in comparison to past Deputy Sheriff hiring results, a smaller number of
Correctional Officer applicants meet basic qualifications. Similarly, those counties hiring Deputy
Sheriffs reported having no problems getting qualified applicants. San Joaquin and Santa Clara have
not hired Deputies in the last five years.
.In counties employing both classifications, Correctional Officers were subject,to a different set of
testing practices. In many cases, Correctional Officers are given different versions of a standard type
of test. For example, all five counties had written and oral testing but in all cases the test was different
for Correctional Officers. In some cases, different medical, psychological, and background tests were
used for Correctional Officers. (See Table 7: Hiring/Testing Practices.)
' Sheriff Service Technician in Ventura is not included in calculation. Turnover average only includes Correctional
Officers.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page,14„
Table 7: Hiring/Testing Practices
Comparison of Counties Employing both Correctional Officers and Deputies
(Fresno,Kern,Riverside,San Joa uin,Solano
Hiringrresting No.of Counties using No.of Counties using No.of Counties with
Practices Test for Deputy Test for Correctional Different Test
Sheriff Officer
Physical Ability 4 3 2
Written 5 5 5
Oral 5 5 5
Polygraph 2 2
Writing Exercise 3 3 .. ._ 2
Medical 5 _,.. ' '5 1 .
Psychological 5 4 I
Background 5 5 2
Career Ladder
Career advancement for Correctional Officers currently exists in Santa Clara, Solano, Riverside, Kern,
and Fresno. The Correctional Officer career ladder in these counties currently includes Correctional
Sergeants and Lieutenants, San Joaquin plans to have Correctional Sergeants by early 1995.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Counties using Deputies only. The four counties that use only Deputies (or Deputies with some
type of Sheriffs Technician), Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Ventura, suggested few
advantages to using Correctional Officers. An advantage (from Ventura)`was that a classification of
employees that worked in detention'their entire careers, or at least for longer periods, provided
consistency in the operation. of the jail. It,was assumed by these counties that any cost savings were
minimal since Correctional Officers would eventually want pay and benefit parity,
Using Deputies was an advantage because it provided a more versatile system where detention and
patrol positions are interchangeable. Many counties suggested that Deputies make better patrol
officers after the experience of working in detention. Sacramento felt that stable detention facilities
were more appealing and better suited for older Deputies.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 15,
Disadvantages in using Correctional Officers included difficulties in recruiting qualified people without
attractive transfer opportunities outside detention, and that two classifications could result in
personnel problems.
Counties'using-,Correctional Officers or Mixed System. The remaining six counties, Fresno, Kern,
Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Solano, either used Correctional Officers only or a mix of
Deputies and Correctional Officers.
A'lower-salary level and the related cost savings was,stated by-allsix counties as an advantage to using
Correctional Officers. It was also thought that, unlike Deputies, Correctional Officers want to be in
the'jiiils=arid are,content'toy be,,career,jail st4ff..,Cbrrectional dffi r work in jails f6r longer.periods;'
and,eventuallyt,becomez-more�farniliar��"* operating,the ail than Deputies,who rotate out every few`
years. In addition, the Correctional -Officer training is more appropriate to the jail setting and
Correctional Officers can be trained and replaced faster than Deputies.
These counties did suggest some disadvantages to using Correctional Officers. There was concern
that'counties would be in competition with CDC for quality Correctional Officers. San Joaquin and
Kern believed that Correctional Officers were a different caliber of employee which was attributed to
Correctional Officers often being younger than.Deputies, receiving less training, and having less of a
law enforcement background and limited knowledge of the Penal Code. On an operational level, some
believed a Correctional Officer system was less flexible, and that since Correctional Officers are not
always armed or trained in investigation, Deputies are needed for some duties, such as transportation,
or writing incident reports.
An advantage to using Deputies was that working in the jails gave Deputies some exposure to the
streets, time to mature, and thus, a good place to start a law enforcement career. Again, it was
thought that Deputies make better patrol officers after working in the jails. In one county, San
Joaquin, it was. suggested that Deputies general law enforcement background resulted in better
decision making abilities and less personnel problems.
The major disadvantage to using Deputies was that they don't really want to work in the jails. And, if
the rotation period out to patrol is too long then Deputies may go work for other police agencies.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 16.
LEGAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
If the County were to convert detention staffing from Deputies to Correctional Officers, several issues
would need to be addressed. The following list of the primary issues reflects the surveys of counties
discussed in earlier sections in this report, inquiries of County Counsel in Contra Costa County, and
conversations about implementation issues with"officials''in'Fresno,` San Diego, and Santa Clara
Counties.
One underlying conclusion seems warranted: if the Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association
support the change, it:,Can be acro nphsfied''relatively smoothly: If,they`:oppose the .changes.=the
conversion will probably precipitate litigation and controversy at the policy-making level and tension
and.morale�problems among:staff mf the fails Although in the;past=D.Ws:have,resisted, the.,,
conversion,.recently.sonic DSA's have supported using'COskin the,jails=in some.counties, in.-part to
avoid jail assignments for` Deputies aad in part `to stabilize and protect (and, in some counties,
increase)patrol positions. `r:. ..
Transition period. During the transition from Deputies to Correctional Officers, various strains and
tensions can be expected. For,example, there would be a time during which mixed classifications
would work side by side, with potential for conflict. Several policy choices influence the length of the
transition period: will all existing personnel be protected? Will the new positions be filled only as
attrition occurs in existing ranks? Will additional new Deputy positions be created, so that Deputies
can be transferred more quickly from jail positions?
Benefits. In the past, one major question has been whether to provide safety retirement to
"civilians." . County Counsel advisory opinions in the past two years conclude that Correctional
Officers will almost surely be granted safety retirement if the matter reaches the courts. (Two
decisions are commonly cited to support this conclusion: Ames v. Board of Retirement, (1983) 147
Cal.App.3d 906, and_Kimball v. County of Santa Clara, (1972), 24 Cal.App.3d 780.)
One portion of what is usually regarded as the "safety retirement package is the provision of certain
special disability benefits under Labor Code section 4850. The County may wish to study further the
potential cost implications of this section. Section 4850 refers to workers compensation, rather than
retirement, law. However, many law enforcement and corrections personnel do retire on disability.
County Counsel indicates that case law may not require 4850 benefits for Correctional Officers (see
United Public Employees v. City of Oakland, (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 729), although Resolution 83/1,
section 15.1 may moot that by already providing substantially the same benefits as 4850.
Recruitment, screening, and training. A new classification would require new screening criteria.
Experience in recruitment and screening in other jurisdictions has been mixed. Likewise, the training
curriculum for new Correctional Officers would need to be planned. While the full POST academy
would not be required for Correctional Officers, at least 12 weeks of training would be needed,
probably along with on-the-job training with senior officers.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional kers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 17.
Career ladders/supervision. One of the most difficult iml:lementation choices involves whether to
place supervisory ranks in the Deputies' or the Correctional Officers' career ladders. (Penal Code
section 831 does require one "peace officer" on duty if there are 20 or more "custodial officers," but
this can be addressed in a number of ways. The issue of career ladders addresses more fundamental
organizational choices). Several jurisdictions, most notably Fresno, have been able to effectively
phase in higher supervisory ranks for the CO ladder, over a period of several years as the CO system
matures.
Scope of conversion: Will all detention positions be converted or only some? Will associated
functions, such as classification and transportation be converted to Correctional Officers? In
particular,the transportation function--taking prisoners to courts, hospitals, etc. and supervising them
while at such non Jail..sites--has been a. subject of confusion and difficulty, . largely because
transportation officers traditionally have'carried weapons. The Penal Code requires all "custodial
officers" to have "832" (firearms) training, but also says that in counties .such as Contra Costa,
custodial officers "have no right to carry or possess" weapons (Penal Code section 831(b). County
Counsel interprets 831(b)to mean that custodial officers may not carry firearms.
At a minimum, the legal situation would need to be studied were the County to include transportation
functions within the conversion to COs. In addition, thought should be given to the types of training
needed, San Diego, for example, has discovered that the 832 firearms training was not sufficient;
additional training may be needed for use of chemical agents (also requiring a change in current
legislation which has been offered by San Joaquin County).
Employee representation and protections. The bargaining agent for Correctional Officers would of
course need to be determined. Correctional Officers are represented by DSAS in some counties, by
other public employee unions in other counties. Fresno County also reports that Correctional Officers
did inquire about coverage under the Peace Officers Rill of Rights, although the decision was made
not to cover them.
tit
Contra ',
Personnel Department
f_i- r_�;_f.-
Costa -''-
i1�: ; Administration Bldg.
x, ,=� 5 651 Pine Street
County -�_�-4n W�oa
'P;•,," h Martinez, California 94553-1292
�O y 7jy
DATE: April 12, 1995
TO: George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator
FROM: Leslie ,H mu an Resources Director
SUBJECT: Study on use of Correctional Officers
This responds to your request for comments on the feasibility study on the use of Correctional
Officers in the County Detention System. My staff has reviewed the report and the following
comments are offered for your consideration.
Salary Savings: The report indicates that the use of Correctional Officers will save the
County at least$2 million per year when fully implemented and full-implementation will
take five to seven years. The report also states that since 1986, the salary difference
between Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers has been slowly eroding. According
to the study, the average Correctional Officer salary is currently 80% of a Deputy
Sheriffs salary. Fringe benefit costs are about the same. Will salary erosion between
the two classes continue and make the conversion fiscally less attractive when full
implementation is finally achieved?
Implementation: The degree of success in implementing a Correctional Officer System
in detention will depend on the degree of support by the Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriffs
Association (DSA). If the Sheriff is "lukewarm" to the use of Correctional Officers, we
cannot expect the DSA to support the use of a Correctional Officer System.
Consequently, implementation would be difficult.
Employee Representation: The Employee Relations Manager will be responsible for
determining which employee organization should represent Correctional Officers.
However, another employee organization may request to meet and confer on this issue.
Career Ladders and Promotional Opportunities: More than likely ve will need to
establish a class series for Correctional Officers; i.e. Correctional Officer I and
Correctional Officer il. At some point in time.it will be necessary to decide if the career
ladder should be expanded to include supervisory ranks, i.e. Correctional Sergeant and
Correctional Lieutenant. For the immediate future we envision Correctional Officers
being supervised by sworn Sergeants and/or Lieutenants. Another issue which the report
did not address is whether or not Correctional Officers ever promote to Deputy Sheriff
and whether or not they.should be offered promotion opportunities to that class. The
report stated that the lack of transfer opportunities outside detention was a disadvantage
in recruiting qualified people for Correctional Officer.
Workers"'Compensation Costs: The report does not deal with the issue of workers'
compensation costs for Correctional Officers versus Deputy Sheriffs assigned to
detention. However, it would seem reasonable to assume that the rotation of De[)V*ieS
out of detention to other divisions somewhat.reduces the likelihood of stress related
claims. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that most normal people can worn
in a detention facility for.a number of years without a few of them developing burnout
or stress problems. In the long run, workers' comp claims costs for Correctional
Officers could be higher than for Deputy Sheriffs assigned to detention.
Recruitment: Currently, the Deputy Sheriff-Recruit examination is administered ori a
continuous basis and is delegated to the Sheriffs Office. A decision would have to be
made on whether Human Resources or the Sheriffs Office would be responsible for the
recruitment and examination-of Correctional Officers. In any case, we will.probably
need different medical, psychological and,backgroundtests for Correctional -Officers.
Based on the report, we can expect'a large number of applicants. ,
Staffing: Are the detention facilities in Contra Costa County more or less conducive to
a Correctional Officer System? Currently, we operate a module system which requires
one Deputy Sheriff to supervise up to 64 inmates. Two Deputies are required if the
population on a module exceeds 64. Will we use this same criteria with Correctional
Officers? In addition, the module system of supervision requires staff with good
interpersonal skills who can manage the inmate population. interpersonal skills will be
an important dimension to test for in a Correctional Officer examination.
Salary RelationshiptoOther Classes: Recently, a member of my staff spoke with a
personnel analyst from another County who indicated that Group Counsellors were
seeking salary parity with their Correctional Officers. This could be an issue in Contra
Costa County depending on the recommended salary for Correctional Officer classes.
UI'K/LF:sd
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Administration Division
646-24012
Date: April 12, 1995
To: Finance Committee
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Jeff Smith
From: Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff
Subject: FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION SYSTEM
The County Administrator's Report on the Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers projects
potential savings of nearly $2,000,000 per year. We project the savings, if there are any
savings, to be well below the $2,000,000.
The following issues must be considered when discussing a conversion to Correctional Officers:
+ All 198 Deputy Sheriff positions in Detention cannot be converted to
Correctional Officers. Not more than 164 Deputy positions could be
converted.
+ When jail systems convert to Correctional Officers many costs (such as the
transportation of prisoners to court, hospital or state prison)are transferred
to other Divisions which use Deputy Sheriffs.
• In our area the pay scale differential between Deputy Sheriffs and
Correctional Officers ranges from 6-13 percent.
It is likely that the salary range for Correctional Officers in Contra Costa
County would be nearly 90 percent of the Deputy Sheriff salary range.
• Historically, turnover rates for Correctional Officers are very high. In
1989 the National average was 23-25 percent per year. Since 1992 the
Correctional Officer turnover in one area has declined. Sonoma County,
which has the hi hest paid Correctional Officers in our area, reports
turnover rates to be approximately 10 percent for Correctional Officers and
3 percent for Deputy Sheriffs.
APR 2 fa 1995
Finance Committee
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Jeff Smith
April 12, 1995
Page 2
Jail Managers predict that as the economy improves and police
departments increase staffing levels, the Correctional Officer turnover will
increase. The reason offered is that many applicants view a Correctional
Officer position as a stepping stone to a career in law enforcement,
• The inmate to staff ratio in the Contra Costa County Detention system is-
higher than any other direct supervision system. In other similar systems
the inmate to Deputy Sheriff/Correctional Officer ratio is between 4.5 -
6.5:1. In Contra Costa County the ratio exceeds 7.4:1. Conversion to a
Correctional Officer could increase the required staff.
* Correctional Officers require much less up front (academy) training than
a Deputy Sheriff.
Approximately one half of all Deputy Sheriffs hired by Contra Costa
County Sheriffs Office are lateral hires who require no academy training .
at our expense.
If the Correctional Officer turnover is 2-3 times that of a Deputy Sheriff
the up front savings are nearly eliminated.
• It would take approximately four years to convert the Detention Division
to Correctional Officers.
WER:js
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
File: DSTOCO.MEM
4 '
v SEER c
CONT R�a1C05T.,� AUNTY
y
DEPUTY SHERI
1 S' rSS'O C I A T I O N INC.
'� � ,
�q COST
1780 MUIR ROAD P_-- - � (510)228-9710
MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637
April 14, 1995
The Deputy Sheriffs Association has received and reviewed the feasibility of using
correctional officers report. After receiving the report the President of the Deputy Sheriffs
Association, Jeff Kyle, accompanied Lieutenant Wayne Beck, Assistant Detention
Commander, as a study of local detention systems using correctional officers was
conducted. During the study several areas of concern were brought forward that directly
relate to our detention system and the use of correctional officers versus Deputy Sheriffs.
In the February Report 198 positions were identified as replaceable by correctional
officers. The maximum number of positions that could be replaced 'is 164. The total
staffing numbers in our Detention division include the Transportation unit, Custody
Alternative Field Deputies, Hospital Deputies and the perimeter units at the West County
Facility.
There are 16 Deputies assigned to Transportation. Their duties include moving inmates to
and from, court, other facilities within the county, out of county pick ups and state prison.
The Custody Alternative Deputies do field checks on individuals at work locations and
residences,. collect samples for drug testing and arrest individuals for violations of the
program or laws. There are 3 Deputies assigned to C.A.B..
Due to the steady increase in the population of our facilities, we staff a position at the
county hospital 24 hours a day seven days a week. This accounts for 5 positions.
The perimeter Deputies at West County are a integral part of the security system. Two
Deputies patrol outside of the electronic fence. After the facility became operational it
became apparent that the perimeter units spent an equal amount of time watching inmates
and preventing people from throwing contraband over the fence to inmates. The Deputies
patrol in fully equipped, marked patrol vehicles and make arrests, vehicle and pedestrian
stops and occasionally assist East Bay Regional Park Police in Point Pinole Park. This
accounts for 10 positions.
-------------
SAlary
The salary for correctional officers in the area varies from 6% to 13% less than Deputy
Sheriffs. Solano County pays correctional officers 6.3% less tha., Deputy Sheriffs.
Sonoma County correctional officers are the highest paid in the survey at $3846 a month
and that is 13% less than they pay Deputy Sheriffs. In order to recruit qualified employees
in this area, a salary separation of no less than 10% could be expected.
stamag - Salary (mid) ykjlmtras Annual Cost
Deputy Sheriff $3879 44.4% $11,203,311
Correctional Officer $3491 44.4% $ x,220,695
Difference $ 1,102,616
All civilian employees in our detention system receive a 5% shift differential for evening
and morning shift, as do almost all of the correctional officers in the survey. Solano
County pays 5.75% on evening shift and 6.5% on morning shift so a correctional officer
on those shifts achieve veritable parity with Deputy Sheriffs. There would be little
justification for not paying correctional officers differential in our system. Approximately
4
90 of the 164 positions would qualify for differential. That would reduce any potential
savings to S83)0,402.
Retention
The turnover rate for correctional officers is lower now than the astronomical levels in the
late eighties. This can be attributed to several factors_
In1992 governmental agencies were hit with large cutbacks and hiring at all levels was
stalled or reduced. The economy has just now started to recover. There has also been a
recent influx of Federal money for the hiring of Peace Officers. Several law enforcement
agencies in the bay area are testing for multiple vacancies. For some, correctional officer is
seen as the first step into law enforcement and at the first opportunity they move on to
accept peace officer positions.
There are many very qualified people who choose corrections as a career and many
Counties recognized that fact. In an effort to stop those employees from moving to a
career in state facilities some Counties began to offer a promotional'ladder to compete
with the state. Sonoma County offers a career ladder to Captain. Management positions
achieve parity at the rank of Lieutenant. Sonoma Counties turnover rate is approximately
10% despite high pay and ability to promote.
Another tactic used by some Counties to retain employees is to raise the pay of
correctional officers. In the February 27, 1995 report, the three local Counties that have
correctional officers in their systems the salary increases average SO%. Deputy Sheriffs in
those same Counties 'nave received 33.3% salary increases. The 1989 study by Hughes,
Heiss and Associates predicted pay parity between correctional officers and Deputy
Sheriffs in the year 2000.
Trainim!
Correctional officers on average receive six weeks of training prior to entering the jail
training program. This is significantly-less than Deputy sheriffs and it would appear that
training;cost would be reduced.
The Contra Costa Sheriffs Department has an average turnover rate of 4%. At current
staffing levels that is 18.6 Deputies a year. Half of new hires are laterals, which means that
there are no academy training costs associated with these Deputies. The Recruits that are
sent to a POST academy receive $2606 a month during the 5 month academy. When you
add in 44.4% for benefits the total training cost is $18,815..
A turnover rate of 10% for correctional officers is not unreasonable given the experience
in other Counties. Correctional officers are paid bottom step during training in other
Agencies. Allowing the 10% salary separation plus 44.4% for benefits, the total training
costs for a correctional officer is $6801.
At the end of the transition period if there were only 164 correctional officers in the
detention system there would be a need for 16.4 new hires a year. There would be
approximately 301 Deputies assigned to other divisions with 12.04 vacancies a year. The
total training costs for the Sheriffs Department would increase. The current cost to train
Deputies to replace vacancies is $174,979.50. After the transition the cost to train 13.4
correctional officers a year would be $111,536.40 and $116,653 to train 6.02 Deputy
Sheriffs for a total of $228,189.40. The net increase of training costs would be
$53,209.90. These figures do not take into account any negotiated increases in wages. The
!0% attrition rate will also apply to the correctional officers that are hired to replace
Deputy Sheriffs. The increase in testing costs alone to hire new correctional officers and
replace the ones that leave during the transition will be approximately $134,600.
Staffing Levels
The Detention division is built around the premise of direct supervision. Direct supervision
requires that Deputies constantly interact with the inmates. This provides a constant
presence to maintain order and to resolve problems before they become incidents. This
system was designed to reduce staff and still enable the County to run a safe jail.
Lieutenant Beck and I toured several facilities during the study. We visited three true
direct supervision facilities in the area. All of those facilities used either correctional
officers or Deputies and correctional officers. The three counties visited were San Joaquin,
San Mateo and Sonoma. The overall inmate to staff ratios were 4.9:1, 4.6:1 and 5,6:1
respectively. The overall ratio reflea-, the total personnel assigned to the total inmate
population, on the day of the survey. These three Counties use Deputies/Ot�icers in all
positions except for clerical people assigned to booking. This provides for a larger group
of people to respond to emergencies and to be more flexible in Job assignments. Contra
Costa County currently has an overall staffing ratio of 7.4:1. This figure includes Sheriffs
Aides. The position of Sheriffs Aide was created to address the need to replace higher
paid Deputies with a more job specific civilian classification as identified in the 1989
Hughes-Heiss report. The February, 1995 report refers to Alameda County having a
Sheriffs Tech position that supervises inmates and Los Angeles County having 400
correctional officers. Both of these Counties followed the trend set 'in Contra Costa
County by civillanizing positions.The duties, of the civilians in those counties are almost
identical to our Sheriffs Aides. They do-not supervise inmates. If you remove the civilian
positions from the total staff in our county the ratio rises to 8.4:1.,
Of-the Counties we visited during the study only Kern County had'a staffing ratio similar
to Contra Costa County's. Kern County had a ratio of 7.9:1. Kern County has a control
room/ pod facility which allows two officers to watch 192 inmates. There are 6 housing
pods with 32 rooms each bullraround a elevated control room. The officer in the control
room looks into each of the pods and another officer walks in a hallway outside the
housing units. The maximum exposure for their officers is 32 inmates. If there is an
incident on any one of the pods, the floor officer waits until additional officers arrive
before even entering the pod. The control room officer has the ability to lock or unlock
each room on each pod to further limit the potential for danger.
The design of our facilities places one officer inside the module with as many 64 inmates
at the MDF. If the inmate count rises above.that level either a second Deputy is added or
the inmates are locked down. The MDF is a maximum security facility. The WCDF has 64
room modules. Each room is a "dry" room, which means that an inmate must leave his
room to drink water, use the restroom and shower- This means that the inmates may not
be locked down (locked in their rooms) for any period exceeding 1/2 hour. Central control
in the WCDF has the ability to lock the outer doors on the module after hours. During
dayshift and part of evening shift the outer doors are left open to allow free movement of
inmates throughout approximately 1/2 of the 35 acres to attend class, medical
appointments and just mingle with other Inmates. On an average dayshift there are 13
Deputies assigned to various areas inside the secure perimeter. There are approximately
550 inmates assigned to the same area now. As the population of our detention system
continues to increase the need to house more inmates at the WCDF will stretch the
existing dangerous staffing levels the maximum. The WCDF is considered a medium
security facility. After the budget cuts during 1992 detention division lost 22 positions.
Since the end of 1994 the counts have steadily Increased and are now hovering around
1500, which is the highest since 1992 There has not been an increase in staff to
accommodate these higher counts. A. national government employees union that
represents thousands of correctional officers published an article in 1993 referring to a
nationwide push for better staffing levels.
operation
As stated earlier in this report, several of the previously identified positions could not be
replaced. The other operational impacts include handling of crimes in the facilities and
emergency transports. One of the questions asked during our survey was concerning
crimes that occurred in the facilities. The answer most often received was that a Deputy
from patrol was called in to handle the initial investigation and write the report.
If there is a need for an emergency transport to the hospital or from an out lying facility
back to the MDF for behavioral problems a Deputy must go. For example if an inmate has
medical emergency at the WCDF and is transported to Brookside a Deputy would ride in
the ambulance and stay with the inmate. If correctional officers were used, a Deputy from
patrol would have to respond to the jail and follow the ambulance to the hospital and stay
with the inmate. It would be a similar situation if an inmate became a severe management
problem at West County. With the current plan to move all female inmates to West
County and to increase the male population these problems will increase exponentially.
A Jail Commander in the central valley stated that he.will always have 5 Deputy Sheriffs
on each of his four teams to handle such occurrences.
With the Sheriffs current policy of rotation between other divisions and Detention you
always have a cross section of seasoned Deputies and new Recruits. This provides a
training ground for new employees and a pool of experienced staff to handle any situation
that may arise.
Because of the recent natural disasters in Southern California a large County is
considering returning to Deputy Sheriffs. During the disasters all of the sworn staff was
committed and there were no more Deputies to draw from. In the same County there is a
push by correctional officers for pay parity.
�onctusions
The Detention system in this County is one of the best run in the state. We consistently do
more with less staff than any other system in the area. In recent years we have seen
populations in the MDF near 900 and have managed to run a safe and secure facility.
Contra Costa County has never had a court imposed population cap. In other Counties the
court intervention has cost enormous sums of money. This does not mean that the
Detention system could not use more staff, but where will you get the most for your
dollar. The true savings will probably be even less than the $642,592.10 identified in this
report and could take'as long as I I years to complete, although this figure is far more
accurate than the $1,996,000. The question is are these intangible savings worth the
tangible risks for the County and above all the TAXPAYERS of Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa County Employees Association
0 MAILING ADDRESS — P.O. Box 222 MARTINEZ, CA 94553
UNION HALL — 5034 BLUM ROAD,MARTINEZ, CA 94553
Fi�pL0-4 PHONE(415) 228-1600
April 19, 995
Mr. Phil Batchelor
County Administrator
651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Phil:
Please excuse the delay in responding to your request for comment on the
Correctional Officers report. Our review of the report shows a substantiation and
brings up to date our long held position regarding the efficacy of having County
Detention Services provided by correctional officers, rather than deputy sheriffs.
In view of the current and future state of affairs concerning funding of mandates
by both the state and federal governments and the increasing demand for services
by an ever growing populace, the County must find alternative methods to provide
those services without putting a further burden on the current work force.
Implementation of the correctional officers replacement of deputy sheriffs will be a
step in that direction.
We strongly urge you to support and recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the County institute the establishment of correctional officers, with the subsequent
replacement of deputy sheriffs at the detention facilities by the aforementioned
correctional officers.
Please feel free to call upon Local One for any assistance we can render in this
effort.
Sincerely,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL ONE
He L. Clarke
1--CE
General Manager IVED
HLC:omm
THE UNION FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ORGANIZED 1941
Request to Speak Form _
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addr64Wng thwBoard.
Name.
• 2-- Phone:
Address: Citv.
am speaking for myself or organization:
l
Game of organization)
CHECK ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date.
My comments will be: general for against .
wish to speak on the subject of
1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider.