HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - C52 TO: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C�J�
FRDNII PHIL BATCHELOR, County Administrator o�
A - Contra
� DATE: September 16,,.1996 Costa� of `s
SUBJECI': STATUS REPORT ON THE WEST COUNTY BOOKING UNIT STUD n ' '` County
`r1�c' "u n�
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report from the County Administrator on the findings on the survey of arresting
agencies regarding the West County Booking Unit Feasibility Study.
BACKG ROU N'D:
In response to a Grand Jury Report dated April 27, 1994, entitled West County Booking Unit
"To Be or Not to Be," a preliminary analysis was undertaken to determine the feasibility of
opening a second full service intake unit, located at the West County Detention Facility in
order to save transportation costs for law enforcement agencies between West County and
Martinez.
A cost/benefit analysis was conducted by the County Administrator's Office on October 25,
1995, at which time it was determined that it would not be feasible to open a second intake
unit. On November 6, 1995, the Internal Operations Committee, upon referral from the
Board of Supervisors, met with representatives from local police agencies, the Sheriff and
the County Administrator to consider the question raised by the Grand Jury and others
regarding opening a booking unit at the West County Detention Facility.
As a result of this discussion, the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1995, at the
recommendation of the Internal Operations Committee, directed the County Administrator
to undertake a very broad study on the costs and benefits to all criminal justice agencies
from establishing a booking unit at the West County Detention Facility and upgrading the
security level at the West County Detention Facility to maximum security to allow all
prisoners emanating from West County to be housed in West County. The Board also
directed that the County Administrator provide a status report to the 1996 Internal
Operations Committee.
A status report was provided to the Internal Operations Committee on April 1, 1996
indicating that a survey of arresting agencies was in progress. Subsequently, in view of the
likelihood that the County would have little to offer to the cities in terms of actually being
able to open a West County booking unit, the County Administrator was asked to defer
consideration of the issue and refer the matter over to the 1997 Internal Operations
Committee.
The responses of the survey of arresting agencies were compiled and the findings are
attached hereto. No further action has been taken on the study as requested by the
Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE:
az:t�
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDAT OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 1, 1996 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHBZ
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT __________ ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED October 1 1996-
CONTACT:
996CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(510) 335-1055 HIL BATCHELOR CLERK OF THE BO D
CC: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF SUPERVISORS D eOUN
SHERIFF ADMIN RAT R
FINDINGS ON THE SURVEY OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ARRESTING AGENCIES REGARDING
THE WEST COUNTY BOOKING UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
On November 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors, at the recommendation of the
Internal Operations Committee, directed the County Administrator's Office to
conduct a study, in conjunction with the Sheriff, members of the Public Managers
Association, and city and town law enforcement agencies on the feasibility of
opening a second full-service booking unit to be located at the West County
Detention Facility. The Board requested that the study meet the following
objectives:
• Objective A. Identify the impact of a West County booking unit on other
elements of the criminal justice system, including the District Attorney, Public
Defender and Courts in relation to the current practice of cite-releasing many
arrestees who might be willing to plea bargain if they were in custody but may
be less likely to plea bargain if they are not in custody prior to trial.
• Objective B. Determine the overall costs and benefits to the community-at-
large in taking into consideration all aspects of the law enforcement system,
whether the Sheriff or city police departments, rather than just the County,
including taking into account the potential savings to city police agencies from
eliminating holding facilities and reducing the time officers have to be out of
the jurisdiction providing transportation of prisoners.
• Objective C. Determine the impact of lower classifications of personnel on
the cost benefit analysis, rather than always assuming that staffing must be
done in the same manner as it has been done in the past.
• Objective D. Evaluate the potential value and operational problems
associated with one or more regional transportation units operating in the
County to reduce the need for each law enforcement jurisdiction to handle all
of its own transportation costs.
• Objective E. Evaluate the potential value and operational problems associated
with contracting some of all inmate transportation out to a private sector firm
or other arrangement which might be able to provide essential transportation
service for less cost than using a sworn deputy or police officer for this
purpose.
• Objective F. Describe commitments that were made about opening a West
County booking unit at the time the West County Detention Facility was being
planned and the events that may have forced some modifications to whatever
commitments were made at that time.
t
c 5Z
• The total estimated annual cost for transporting arrestees to MDF reported by
West County cities is approximately $128,000.
Table 2: Annual Expense for Transporting Prisoners to MDF
..........................
Arresting;: #;of trips Pnsonets Classification:o.. Annual Salary of Hourly rate use of Time Cost #of Trips Annual
....Agy per month. per trip transport staff Sworn Staff(4) of pay(5} Reserues (hours) (2).. per tnp per year Expense
........ ............ ........... .......: .._.....-. .......:.... ..:..-_:.. ...... .........._.. ......... ......... .......I. ......_.. _..._ _.
CC Sheriffs Dept 150 2 Deputy Sheriff $73,300.00 $35.11 Yes 1.45 $50.90 1,8001 91,625.00
Richmond P D 90 8 Police Jailers $44,268.00 $21.20 No 3 $63.60 1,080 68,691.72
Walnut Creek P D 35 1 Police Officer $78,925.00 $37.80 No 3 $113.40 420 47,627.16
San Pablo P D 30 1 Police Officer $81,000.00 $38.79 Yes 3 $116.38 360 41,896.55
Concord P D 45 2 Police Officer $78,000.00 $37.36 Yes 1.5 $56.03 540 30,258.62
Pittsburg P D 59 2 Police Officer $53,045.00 $25.40 No 1.5 $38.11 7081 26,979.78
Martinez P D 60 1 Police Officer $65,000.00 $31.13 Yes 1 $31.13 720 22,413.79
Brentwood P D(1) 17 1 Police Officer $18,000.00 Yes 2 $0.00 204 18,000.00
EI Cerrito P D 16 1 Police Officer $76,000.00 $36.40 No 2 $72.80 192 13,977.01
Pleasant Hill P D 40 2 Police Officer $55,000.00 $26.34 Yes 1 $26.341 480 12,643.68
Lafayette P D 15 1 Police Officer $80,000.00 $38.31 Yes 1.5 $57.47 180 10,344.83
Orinda P D 7 1 Deputy Sheriff $85,000.00 $40.71 No 2 $81.42 84 6,839.08
San Ramon P D 10 1 Police Officer $75,000.00 $35.92 Yes 1 $35.92 120 4,310.34
Bart P D 6 1 Police Officer $83,915.00 $40.19 No 1.45 $58.27 72 4,195.75
Kensington P D 4 1 Police Officer $55,000.00 $26.34 No 2 $52.68 481 2,528.74
Danville P D 15 1 Deputy Sheriff $55,000.00 $26.34 Yes 0.5 $13.17 180 2,370.69
Hercules P D 1 31 1 1 Police Officer 1 $50,000.001 $23.95 No 1 $23.95 36 862.07
1) In the survey, Brentwood PD supplied the annual expense at the Police Officer salary($18,000) and at the Reserve Officer salary($5,000) for
transporting prisoners based on 1995 data.
2.) If agencies reported a range (2-4 hours), the average was taken (3 hours).
3.) The annual expense is calculated using only the Sworn Staff salary. Fifty-three percent of responding agencies used Reserve Officers when available,
but data was not available to determine what percentage of time they were utilized to transport prisoners.
4.) This figure includes salaries and benefits.
5.) The hourly rate of pay was calculated by taking the annual salary and dividing it by 2,080 hours.
• Most agencies stated that they would not be willing to dedicate any cost savings achieved as a
result of a West County booking unit or regionalized transportation services to help finance these
services. San Pablo and Richmond stated that they would possibly consider this appropriation. The
Sheriff's Department stated that it would "participate in mutually beneficial cost-savings and
problem solving," and the Hercules Police Department stated that a dedication of cost savings to
aid financing a new unit was a possibility. Other agencies seemed to be of the opinion that cost
savings to their agency should be redirected to their agency's costs. The Kensington Police
Department stated specifically that it would utilize such savings to offset the cost of what it
considers to be exorbitant booking fees at the County jail.
5
Findings of Objective C
A comparison of the salaries of sworn staff and non-sworn jailers indicates a significant savings if
arresting agencies were to utilize non-sworn staff. Agencies could achieve a maximum savings of 40%
and a minimum of 11 % over current transportation expenses, and probably substantially more if
reserve officers availability were maximized.
• The most frequent positive impact cited by agencies resulting from the use of non-sworn officers
was that patrol officers could continue to work their assigned beats.
• Agencies frequently cited availability of non-sworn or reserve officers as being the greatest
hindrance to utilizing them for transportation of prisoners. Richmond is the only police department
using non-sworn Police Jailers and reports that though the use of civilian jailers represents a salary
savings, "Civilian jailers, however, often experience difficulty booking prisoners at the Main
Detention Facility, which is operated by sworn police officers. Deputies often make our jailers
wait while non-essential tasks are performed. Our jailers report that they are sometimes not treated
with respect because of their civilian, non-sworn status."
Findings of Objective D
• Four of the agencies currently participate in a cooperative arrangement with another other local
agency for the transportation of prisoners to the County booking facility, three of which are West
County cities (EI Cerrito, Richmond and Hercules).
• Agencies were asked what they forecast as possible advantages to establishing a regional transport
unit, and most cited the ability to keep sworn officers in the cities and on their beats, generally
giving them more time for patrol functions. Most also cited lower transportation costs. Two
agencies specifically stated that the low number of arrests and bookings each makes, a regional
transport unit might not be economically advantageous.
• Asked to predict operational problems that might result with one or more regional transportation
units operating in the County, agencies responded that the cost of such an operation would
ultimately determine whether it would help save money. Police departments frequently voiced
concern over whether such a transport unit would be readily available, whether after-hours pick up
would be problematic, and whether the cost might outweigh the benefit to a small agency with a
low crime and arrest rate.
• The San Pablo Police Department specifically expressed concern over the issue of liability of each
agency's prisoner, coordination among the agencies, and at what point custody of the prisoner
would be relinquished to the transport unit. Brentwood mentioned that "extended supervision of
in custody inmates in the temporary holding facility [might result] while awaiting arrival of a
transport unit." The BART Police Department raised the issue of possible civil lawsuit complications
that could arise out of claims of brutality/mistreatment of prisoners by an allied agency employee,
and the question arose of who would then be responsible for the legal defense.
6
C'S2
• The Lafayette Police Department stated that a problem might be timing, and that they had previous
experience in this area with other programs in East County which was inefficient. The Sheriff's
Office questioned whether such a transport unit would be available 24 hours a day, and whether
the transport unit would respond to the arrest location.
• The Sheriff's Office also raised the issue of what would happen when an arrest was made while
the transport unit was either en route to or out of service at the Martinez Detention Facility, and
added that this had been experienced in the early 80's with East County agencies. The opinion
stated by the Richmond Police Department was that "in order to establish a regional transportation
unit, all prisoners would have to be booked into a central jail (Richmond?). It would not be cost
effective or practical for a regional transportation unit to drive to six individual West County
jurisdictions and pick up and transport prisoners to the County jail in Martinez."
Findings of Objective E
• When asked about the potential advantages to each agency by contracting prisoner transportation
out to a private sector firm, most agencies responded that advantages would be similar to
advantages with arranging a regional transportation unit. Agencies agreed that if such a private
sector firm could provide immediate transport to the County jail, this would lower costs, save time
for tasks such as report writing and responding to other calls, in general allowing for better patrol
coverage, with more officers remaining on their beats.
• Regarding disadvantages that might be associated with a contract transportation unit, most agencies
cited availability as a potential problem, and many also mentioned cost. Some agencies stated that
downtime waiting for the transportation unit to make its rounds might decrease the overall
effectiveness of this plan. Similar to concerns relating to the option of coordinating a regional
transportation unit, agencies again cited coordination between agencies as being a potential
problem. In particular, the Sheriff's Office saw the same concerns raised as to a regional transport
unit as being applicable to the potential complications involved with using a private sector firm.
The San Ramon Police Department stated concerns over chain of custody/evidence handling issues,
such as collection of clothing or hidden items. San Ramon also envisioned a need for
identification of arrestees in a case where several agencies' arrestees are transported together.
Findings of Objective F
• Regarding commitments made to cities and arresting agencies about opening a West County
booking unit, 47% of the responding agencies were not aware of any commitments. Twenty-three
percent, however indicated that the major advantage to opening the booking unit was to reduce
booking time at MDF. Of West County cities, San Pablo P D stated that the opening of the West
County Facility was the answer to West County overcrowding and increased public safety needed
to house violent arrestees. EI Cerrito P D stated that the booking unit was an integral part of the
West County facility, and the County solicited and received support from cities based on opening
the booking unit. Richmond P D stated that West County would serve as a booking unit as well as
a detention unit. Hercules P D believed that the West County facility would take Hercules' and
other West County prisoners.
7
• Forty-seven percent of the responding agencies stated that budget issues within the County were
events that may have forced modifications to commitments made to open the West County
booking unit. Of the West County cities, four felt budget issues were the major factors. San Pablo
P D stated that there was resistance by the County Administrator and the Deputy Sheriff's
Association to open the booking unit, but did not indicate the reasons for the resistance.
• Eighty-two percent of the agencies who responded did not feel that their agency experienced any
operational benefit as a result of the opening of the West County Detention Facility. For those
agencies who had benefited, responses included a reduction in travel time for Officers to attend
parole hearings and interview suspects, Bay Substation moved into a larger, modern facility which
reduced overcrowding at MDF and Clayton. In addition, female inmates received improved
conditions and services.
• When asked about operational problems or costs experienced by the agencies with the opening of
the West County facility, 82% were not adversely affected. Of the few that did experience
problems, all expressed disappointment that their expectations were not met regarding a reduction
in time required either to travel to MDF to book prisoners, interview in custody inmates, or to
move prisoners from MDF to West County. The Sheriff's Department experienced severe overtime
expenses from inadequate staffing for custody services, patrol, recruiting, general services and
maintenance.
Findings of Objective G
• Responding agencies with the exception of the Sheriff's Department did not provide information
on this objective. When asked to evaluate liability issues related to the practical versus legal
requirements of the Sheriff to conduct mental health, medical, and classification screening of
prisoners, the Sheriff's Department stated that "The Sheriff's Office is required by State standards
and law to properly evaluate the Mental Health and Medical conditions of arrested individuals at
the time of "booking." Many times a failure to do so results in the Sheriff's Office accepting full
liability for any negative reaction affecting the inmate. Prior to that acceptance, the liability lays
with the arresting agency."
• None of the agencies suggested ways to streamline the booking process and avoid duplication of
tasks without unfairly increasing the liability of any jurisdiction.
Findings of Objective H
• Over half (53%) of the agencies surveyed indicated that they use some form of automated system
for either remote booking, video imaging or jail management. Examples listed by agencies were
JMS, JAWS, CIS, CCCSO system and non-automated CCC booking sheets. Two West County cities
use automated systems, but San Pablo stated that their system was not fully operational and some
data was inaccurate.
8
• There were varying responses regarding technology and its benefits. For those agencies who had
operating systems, some stated a reduction in booking time, immediate access to booking photos
and information from participating agencies. Three of the agencies with systems either felt the
systems were too new to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency, or that the MDF duplicates the pre-
booking process already accomplished from the remote site.
• Problems and costs experienced by the agencies who had automated systems also varied.
Programming problems were concerns for three of the agencies, either because of incomplete data,
or for the Sheriff, staffing was impacted by County budget problems and was unable to assess any
benefit to date. San Pablo stated that costs remain high and incomplete data on the system may
allow multiple offenders to be cited and released. Equipment costs were an issue for two of the
agencies, while one agency complained that the system is dependent on computer expertise, which
indicates an additional issue and expense of training users on the various systems.
Findings of Objective I
• When asked to distinguish legal requirements for booking, transport an custody of prisoners from
local policy requirements, 71 % of the agencies responding did not identify which tasks being
currently performed were in excess of tasks that were legally required. Eighteen percent of the
agencies stated that no additional tasks were performed by their staff, while two agencies did
perform additional duties. These included finding childcare for arrests involving single parents
before transporting the arrested parent to jail, packaging property items, storing large property,
completion of on-view arrest forms, fingerprinting and taking mug photos (San Ramon and Walnut
Creek).
• Sixty-five percent of the agencies were not willing to assume liability in the event that non-
performance by the County of such tasks resulted in consequential damages, while 29% were not
sure. One agency, the Sheriff's Office indicated that they have assumed their fair share of liability
and review as a result of systems or participating agencies' acts and omissions.
Findings of Objective I
• Agencies were asked to explore the County's ability to use the West County facility for a broader
range of prisoner classifications so that all West County residents, regardless of their crimes or past
history, could be held in the West County facility. If the County was able to increase the security
level to maximum, agencies were asked what staffing and upgrades would be necessary to achieve
this. Seventy-one percent did not have the expertise to answer this question, while 18% suggested
building additional units such as a "D" module or "building 4." Two agencies stated that additional
staffing would be required for intake and housing. Hercules P D suggested using security guards in
lieu of sworn Deputies in an effort to reduce operational expenses. The Sheriff's Office indicated
that staffing was not an issue, West County was not designed to be a maximum security facility.
• Sixty-five percent of the responding agencies were not aware of any operational benefits they
would receive as a result of an upgrade of the security level to maximum at West County. Two
9
agencies felt cost savings would be achieved (Hercules P D and San Ramon P D), in addition to
efficiencies in booking time, transporting prisoners and felt that more serious offenders would be in
custody rather than cite-releasing them (Hercules and San Pablo). The Sheriff's office stated that the
only possible upgrades to West County, due to its design, would be to add more fencing and
institute policy changes to enhance security.
• Sixty-five percent of the agencies were not aware of operational problems or costs that they would
encounter as a result of an upgrade to the security level. Thirty-five percent felt additional costs
would be incurred from an increase in staffing for maximum security prisoners. One agency felt
medical costs would increase and several others stated that construction costs for new housing and
additional Sally ports would increase.
• Agencies were asked to indicate whether they thought an upgrade was justified at this time. Fifty-
three percent did not have adequate knowledge to answer, 30% said yes (Hercules, Lafayette,
Pleasant Hill and San Pablo) and the remaining 18% did not feel an upgrade was necessary. Two
of the agencies who answered yes qualified their answers but in differing opinions. The Sheriff's
Department stated that the overall detention system needed an upgrade, but not specifically at
West County. San Pablo cited several factors such as inconvenience to West County agencies for
transporting prisoners, overcrowding and delays in booking at MDF.
• Two of the responding agencies had additional information to contribute to the study. Richmond P
D stated that there would be a cost savings by opening the booking unit at West County because
downtime for jailers, police officers and detectives would dramatically decrease and an upgrade to
security would not be necessary. San Pablo P D was critical of the County decision makers, stating
that public safety, adequate prisoner housing and expedition of court appearances did not appear
to be priorities. The Sheriff's Department asked what can be done about expediting booking at
MDF to alleviate the current problems experienced by many of the arresting agencies who
responded to the study.
Tables containing detailed responses to specific questions and the survey itself are available upon
request.
10