HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071995 - FC.1 FC. 1
5.. Contra
. -
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �; ;;s Costa
w,`a4
FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE: Tom Torlakson ��. �r County
Jeff Smith. r>q r u"
DATE: February 27 , 1995
SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION SYSTEM
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept the report from the County Administrator on the feasibility of
utilizing Correctional Officers in Contra Costa County's adult detention
facilities .
2 . Refer the report to the Sheriff-Coroner, Deputy Sheriffs' Association,
Local 1, County Counsel, and Personnel for analysis and comment.
3. Maintain the report on referral to the Finance Committee.
4 . Request the Finance Committee to further consider the matter within 60
days in order to develop a more specific course of action as
appropriate.
5 . Reaffirm that the County faces a known budget problem of $20 . 3 to $25 .9
million for FY 1995/96 and that all avenues must be explored that
promise more cost effective use of County personnel, including the
utilization of Correctional Officers in the County's adult detention
facilities,
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Potential $2, 000, 000/year or more savings to County after five to seven year
conversion period.
Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve
Signature(s) : Tom Torlakson J € mith
Action of Board on:-�' � '' Approved as Recommended Other
Vote of Supervisors : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
--- - Unanimous (Absent �- } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes : } BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Contact: George Roemer (646-4855) Attested: L7X4,a �,, 7t
cc: CAO-Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
. Sheriff-Coroner the Board of Supervisors
Deputy Sheriffs' Association and County Administrator
Local 1
Personnel By: �-= �-- , DEPUTY
County Counsel
elk—
Use of Correctional Officers in
Contra Costa County Detention System
2/27/95
Page 2
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The appropriateness of utilizing Correctional Officers in the detention
system in Contra Costa County was referred by the Board of Supervisors to the
County Administrator during the FY 1994-95 budget hearings . During the past
seven years, several studies have been requested to assess the feasibility of
converting Contra Costa detention Deputy Sheriff positions to Correctional
Officer classifications . 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 personnel costs through less
costly employee classifications versus the experience of some jurisdictions
which have converted to Correctional Officers resulting in higher levels of
staff turnover, overtime and training costs compared to Deputy Sheriffs . The
report prepared by the County Administrator revisits these issues . The
report summarizes the findings from the two previous studies conducted in
Contra Costa, provides updated detention staffing information from nine other
jurisdictions comparable to Contra Costa County, and describes the experience
in changing from one classification to another in three counties--Fresno, San
Diego and Santa Clara.
The February 28, 1995 report of the County Administrator to the Board of
Supervisors indicates that "the County faces a known General Fund budget
problem in the 1995-96 fiscal year of $20 . 3 to $25 . 9 million, regardless of
what other actions may be taken by the State and Federal governments in the
next few weeks or months . " Therefore, it is necessary to consider all
possible courses of action which may increase the cost effectiveness of all
County operations, including the use of Correctional Officers in the County
adult detention facilities .
FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS IN THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DETENTION SYSTEM
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
County Administrator's Office
Carol Kizziah
Mark Morris
Craig Miller
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers iii the 6 nira Costa County Detention System
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JL T-1-
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......... ......................... .......................................................... I
INTRODUCTION ............. ...................... .................... ........ .......................... ...........—3
SUMMARY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STUDIES .......... ............ ....................... 4
STATEWIDETRENDS ..................... .................. ............... ......... ............ ...................6
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUDY UPDATE 1994 ....................................................7
LEGAL AND Rvl]PLEWNTATION'ISSUES ................................................................ 16
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Cp44 County Detention System Page 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the past seven years, several studies discussed the 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 I summarizes rough estimates of the total salary and benefits costs for three staffing
strategies (at today's staffing levels and in today's dollars): (a) retaining Deputy Sheriff 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 implemented'. (The transition to 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 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*ould 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 s,.ven 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 Officers has remained about the same. In most established CO-staffed systems, COs do
have safety retirement.
Most systems we surveyed report few difficulties in recruiting and retaining COs. Fresno and Kern
are exceptions; they experienced higher turnover, as COs left because of California Department of
Corrections hiring related to prison expansion projects in their areas. Ventura reports losing large
numbers of civilian service technicians to higher paying CO positions in Santa Barbara County.
Advantages and disadvantages. Our survey yielded mixed comments regarding the advantages and
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 them?
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 personnel costs through less costly employee classifications versus the
experience of many jurisdictions which have converted to Correctional Officers resulting in higher
levels of staff turnover, overtime and training costs 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 Officers 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 discussed ways 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 dislocations in the Sheriffs Department; the difficulty in recruiting
qualified personnel in this geographic area if the salary level was reduced; and, the trend toward parity
of salary between Deputy Sheriff and Correctional Officer did not warrant large scale reform in the
detention staffing pattern. Consultants found the Sheriffs Department 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
Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 time consuming and 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 for 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 Sheriff's Department.
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 6.
STATEWIDE TRENDS
Representatives of the State Board of Corrections were contacted for information regarding trends in
detention staffing statewide.
There appears to be a fairly significant trend toward Correctional Officers since the last study
conducted in Contra Costa County (1989). In fact, there are only seven counties in the State of
California that do not recruit Correctional Officers:
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
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 kers 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 Jails. 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 contacted in each county representing different agencies, e.g., Sheriff's
Department, County Administrator's Office and Personnel. The counties were selected because they
were similar in size and other demographic variables to Contra Costa and/or they were in close
geographic proximity. Information about the systems studied is provided in Table 2: Detention System
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.
-------
---- -- ---------
------------------
.c
USO d
06
c� O -IN N 7M
p �„ •� '�" ." �!? V1 IM
6oz
�r "C v1 1 w
C.rA
ej
KIM
O C pAm p o 0 o e Na
d � !i'r^ 'i c-� �' s �,,. �'a Y•�sem. pr t�.� _ Vf.
'C=4
rem
�M M � x.ONO O •� i-r
N M � r O
_t +. �T " O
•-f..s`- '`a, 3• a, e
'3 fn OaE If
Ch
O
S7 1
15- SO
04
00
';'T
�- _ vg
00
MIMu s -
KPfM
4 a 0 3 M N
y d O s�"���'-�« � .xR ¥•��a2-� �� �
•O A [ ONO eW.4 O of O [� M
N M41
ys.d M MraQ' C�
IN"
NO-
�' -� x, gam"
mp-
OR�� o
VJ L CL G =•-+ 00 ,,r•�,, ^' o O V1 " r3- �D 00 M ';1 �L .3 +•+ .
L V .ff3= M d ', `-""A- 'N N N cQ N N N N f-•7." p .N.+
+� G N�N EF�_ N ���L z 00 p iX h ,
x
.45
wi
NI
O O� MINOR
s-1 N V�1 U O V 4-
0
N Fn O
w t7+ .. r. E- ce v a� o '�►
C� V71,11
Cd Q, c � Irv; ' �» O
ct
O71,
O O
p 'a+ rhi 00 O O C fl O y G .N
p t"C O O00
QI p i"� N 000 O ON- vii a O O N ani C :�
00
Ln c
1� �+
ME
c 000. E o
rn � � oMEN �. rn � � � o 0
.,wn�.-. .•. it •--� •--� fi ..n..-r .--� ,r.�.� .�~.� 0A �„ y
IME"IVppl VopJ � a � � O
A
r.
03 O a, yr y O
,.
CO) a Fn 3 C
a7-. .7. ZCn
0
L
cq v
4- ,J.-4 z z zz
o �
E
fA
h
MM� 16.
O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O
++ DD N N N h h h M m O O N N ID .-, N N Ml
M M M M M 'Ct Ct M C' IT er M M Vl M m
Q �* O
� o
LF C o o o a o ti Q Q Qo pe p Q wl
C)
C* rnato rnr�a zZ Z oC, CD r- 00 Zz �
0
tD 00 N 'IT 00 C\ m "o O N N
'� pp V1 '7 "" 00 'T h vl 00 O O dr h 00 vl 00 4n 1D O
vl N M vl vl 10 hN O� 7 'IT O %D kn �D
O N N M N m M M N m m Cl) M M m m N N
a 69 69 69
Vi 69 69 69 64 69 64 69 69 69 69 6H 69 69 6R
> > I 1 �
VS m 00 +n C\ {, ro Wl
d a, N "It 00 O M00 00 O vlm 00 &) %0 O MN
aF C\ C+ O a, It 00 N O %D N 00 00 vl �D 00 00 O
M N M N N N N N N m N m N N N N
N 5Ii 64 69 69 69 d9 bpi 64 RA 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 6e 69 64
N
d cl
b ~
Oj
m cin `n00 rna � � a"i `n0 > 0 p `n •� '~ '�'
tj
go� u
U Q� QV Q U Q U ( rn C v Ga V C) Q 0 0
xU
.8
0
0
y w
o � o
CCI CQ L., 00 N N b
00
iz d 2
t~
0
E
6d y Vl
C) a o o Q Q O o\p
� u o rn CD
Q, Ey
s~ �
o
w 00 rr 3
4 pCp "n V 0000 In O a\ vl 00 ,..,
w
W 6
w 69 69 GH 69 9 69 69 6A fiR
!� a
—
CCC N Qt p h. C`• .""' 0000 oo M �
eTr m m 00
NN N M M A
69 EH 69 b9 6R eq VI
•i.i QI � �
cz
c u
ca rn va cn CIO C11 Go cn
T T
w U ccs
as �'
ej
cu
e
s�
Feasibility of Utilizing Correctional kers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 10.
Table 4: Deputy Sheriff and Classification Supervising Inmates
Chan Yes in Detention Sale ries;`,1986- 1994'
Amount Dep. Amount Dep.
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
Alamedax $2 141/mo -- 3 422/mo +$1,185 53.0%) (+$1.281
Contra Costa - $3,489 +$1,179(51.0%) - -
Fresno $1,906 +$229(13.7%) $3,000 +$864(40.0%) $459 $1,094
Kern $2,082 +$523 (33.5%) $2,937 +$886(43.0%) $492 $855
Riverside $2,484 +$848(52.0%) $2,917 +$778(36.3%) $503 $433
Sacramento ($2,208) (+$482(28.0%)) $2,815 +$720(34.0°1x) $369 ($607)
San Joaquin $2,635 +$913 (53.0%) $3,051 +$798(35.0°/4) $531 $416
(a) $2,838 (a)(- )4 (a) (a) $445
Santa Clara3 (b)($2,865) (b)(+$1,000(54%)) $3,283 +904(38.0%) (b)$514 (b)($418)
(c)($3,189) (c)(+$1,133 (554/0)) (c)$323 (c) ($94)
Solan $2,509 +$757(43.0°/4) $2,680 +$594(28.04/0) $334 $171
(a)($1,826) (a)(+$270(17.2%))
Ventura$ (b)($1,815) (b)( ) 1 $2,637 +$606(30.04/4) $465 ($811)
Averaes6 $2,409 +$654 39.2% $3,023 +$851 39.2410 $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 I1 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.
5 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).
Feasibility 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 Sheriffs (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 Sheriff's 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
Correctional Officers and Deputies. Some differences in incentive pay did exist in counties that employ
both Deputies and Correctional Officers. In San Joaquin, Kern and Riverside, education or certificate
incentives were available to Deputies but not Correctional Officers.
Table 5: Benefits Comparison
Changes in Fringe 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 Page 12.
Turnover
Where information was available, it appears turnover rates have remained constant for Deputy
Sheriffs 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 are significantly lower, Solano (1.7%) and Riverside
(4.9%), and almost equal to that of Deputy Sheriff's.
In 1994, the major reasons for Deputy Sheriff turnover were retirement, resignation, and jobs with
other law enforcement agencies. In Alameda, which had the highest turnover rate (8%), Deputies
work in the jails for four to five years before being assigned to patrol. An estimated five percent of
their turnover is due to Deputies taking other law enforcement jobs to shorten the time spent working
in detention. (See Table 6: Turnover Rate Comparison.)
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 the Sheriff's 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 Correctional
Deputy Sheriff Officer
Alameda 8% NA
Contra Costa 5% -
Fresno 5% 12%
Kern 5% 6%
Riverside 4.8% 4.9%
Sacramento 4% -
San Joaquin 7% 10%
Santa Clara - 3%
Solano 2.5% 1.7%
Ventura 5% (200/ol)
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 2,000 applicants for 30 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 Emp►,:�ying both Correctional Officers and Deputies
(Fresno,Kern,Riverside,San Joa uin,Solano
Hiring/Testing 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 0
Writing Exercise 3 3 2
Medical 5 5 1
Psychological 5 4 1
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 tr-nsfer opportunities outside detention, nd 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 all six counties as an advantage to using
Correctional Officers. It was also thought that, unlike Deputies, Correctional Officers want to be in
the jails and are content to be career jail staff. Correctional Officers work in jails for longer periods,
and eventually become more familiar with operating the jail 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 accomplished relatively smoothly. If they oppose the change, the
conversion will probably precipitate litigation and controversy at the policy-making level and tension
and morale problems among staff in the jails. Although in the past DSA's have resisted the
conversion, recently some DSA's have supported using COs in the jails in some counties, in part to
avoid jail assignments for Deputies and in part to stabilize and protect (and, in some counties,
increase) patrol positions.
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.AppAth 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 Officers in the Contra Costa County Detention System Page 17.
Career ladders/supervision. One of the most difficult implementation choi&f 7� 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 Bill of Rights, although the decision was made
not to cover them.