Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07181995 - D1� I r/ e l Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . k_ ,s Costa County FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE ��.•:�__,..•�* tiA N'� Supervisor Tom Tbrlakson CGiI Supervisor Jeff Smith DATE: July 11, 1995 SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY OF UTILIZING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES Specific Request(s ) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: Direct the County Negotiating Team to meet and confer with the Deputy Sheriffs ' Association on the use of Correctional Officers in the County' s Detention Facilities . REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: On July 11, the Finance Committee further considered the feasibility of using Correctional Officers in the County' s Detention Facilities . At the meeting, Henry Clarke, General Manager of Local 1 , Paul Katz of Local 1 and Jim Hicks of AFSCME Local 2700 spoke in favor of the use of Correctional Officers . Deputy Jeff Kyle, representing the Deputy Sheriffs ' Association, was opposed to the use of Correctional Officers . Since making a transition from Deputy Sheriffs to Correctional Officers in the jail raises a ,number of meet and confer issues in any event, the Finance Committee is making the above recommendation. Continued on Attachment: YES Signature:- Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : TOM TORLAKSON JEFF SMITH Action of Board on: '3 Approved as Recommended Others— .�-- 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: cc: CAO-Justice System Programs Phi Batchelor, Clerk of Henry Clarke, Local #1 the Board of Supervisors Paul Katz, Local #1 and County Administrator Jim Hicks, AFSCME Local #2700 Jeff Kyle, Deputy Sheriffs ' By: DEPUTY Association Sheriff-Coroner ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM: DA JULY 18, 1995 The Board considered the proposal presented by the Finance Committee relative to the feasibility of utilizing correctional officers in the Contra Costa County Detention facilities. The following persons spoke: Henry L. Clarke, Local 1, P. O. Box 222, Martinez; Paul Katz, Local 1, P. O. Box 222, Martinez; Warren Rupf, County Sheriff-Coroner; Jim Hicks, AFSCME 512, 1000 Court Street, Martinez; and Jeff Kyle, Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Martinez. All persons desiring to speak were heard. The Board discussed the issues presented and were in agreement to refer this matter to the Board Committees. THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Finance Committee and Internal Operations Committee for report to the Board of Supervisors on the various issues raised in the Board discussion this day. ' i r ADDENDUM TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995 REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF USING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION SYSTEM By Carol Kizziah and Mark Morris July 11, 1995 Background 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 99495 budget hearings. A report was prepared (February 27, 1995)and submitted to the Finance Committee. The Board received the report and asked that it be forwarded to interested agencies for analysis and comment and brought back to the Finance Committee within 60 days. Attached to this memorandum are reports from: Leslie Knight, Personnel Director; Warren Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner; Jeff Kyle, President, Deputy Sheriff's Association; and, Henry Clarke, General Manager, Local 1. Introduction The following comments summarize the issues raised in these reports and at the Finance and Board meetings. In essence, the issues and discussion surrounding the use of Correctional Officers in Contra Costa are the same as they have been over the last eight years. The detention system continues to be well managed. The only reason to consider a change is the opportunity to achieve significant cost savings without creating significant problems in the detention system. Earlier studies warned that significant cost savings might not be achieved due to several factors. The two major factors considered were the belief that the salary difference between the two classifications would erode, and the possibility that high turnover rates in the Correctional Officer classification would reduce potential cost savings. To assess these concerns, the same group of ten counties were surveyed for earlier reports and for this report. Comparisons of eight year trends in these counties suggest that the expected erosion in the difference in salary between Correctional Officers and Deputy Sheriffs has not taken place, and that the turnover rates for Correctional Officers have been reduced, remaining a problem for a few selected counties in California where large state prisons have opened. The single most striking trend statewide is that more and more counties are using Correctional Officers to staff detention facilities. The DSA report suggests less savings using Correctional Officers than the amount reported in the CAO report (2-27-95). The difference in savings is based on important differences in assumptions. The CAO report calculated the salary difference at 15 percent and the DSA calculated the difference at 10 percent. The DSA report calculated the turnover rate for Correctional Officers at 10 percent. based on the rates in two nearby counties. The CAO found a 6.3 percent average turnover rate for COs in the counties surveyed. The difference in cost savings based on these differences in assumptions points to the importance of the policy decisions relating to setting a salary rate, the Correctional Officers • Page 1 County's willingness to maintain a difference in salaries between Correctional Officers and Deputy Sheriffs, as well as the leadership role of the Sheriff's Department in making s-.ich a transition. Cost Savings The CAO report provided rough estimates of the total salary and benefits costs for three staffing strategies. The savings were based on 198 detention positions. The DSA report suggested some of these positions should not be included in the calculation: 16 Deputies assigned to Transportation, three Deputies assigned to Custody Alternative Bureau, five positions assigned to the County Hospital, and ten positions assigned to perimeter security at the West County Detention Facility (WCDF). It is agreed that it would not make sense to civilianize most of these positions for a variety of reasons: e.g., the 'transportation deputies carry firearms, the Custody Alternatives Bureau deputies are paid for in fees collected for services. However, it might not be necessary to use only sworn positions for perimeter security at the WCDF, and the Deputies assigned to the County Hospital are on overtime and are not included in the 198 allocated detention positions. A reasonable compromise is to use 174 positions (with safety retirement) rather than the 198 in the February 27, 1995 CAO report. With this lower number of positions, the estimated cost savings in salaries and benefits would be reduced by $242,080 a year at full implementation. However, the estimated cost savings in the CAO report are conservative. They do not include potential savings in recruitment, training, overtime and other costs associated with staffing. (In fact, one suggestion is to hire COs to cover, at regular salaries, the overtime now accrued at time and a half by deputies.) They also do not include estimated savings if a career ladder were instituted. For example, if a career ladder is provided at the rank of sergeant, there could be 23 positions changed to Correctional Sergeant (based on 25 sergeants currently assigned to detention minus the sergeants in Transportation and the Custody Alternative Bureau). If calculated at a 15 percent difference at a mid range current salary level for sergeant, it would mean a salary savings of $184,368 per year at full implementation. Implementation of a career ladder could occur during the transition period. In short, the total annual savings in salaries and benefits would remain at about $2 million (in today's dollars) when the conversion is complete. Difference in Salary The CAO report estimated a 15 percent difference in salary between a Correctional Officer and a Deputy Sheriff. The selection of 15 percent was based on the mid point between what is occurring in the six counties surveyed utilizing Correctional Officers. The DSA suggested the difference should be 10 percent based on the mid point difference in Sonoma and Solano Counties. To achieve cost savings the County would have to set and maintain a significant difference in salary. If Contra Costa set the rate at 15 percent below the current Deputy Sheriff salary, the County should still be competitive.for Correctional Officers since the Deputy rate in Contra Costa is the highest of the ten counties surveyed. Correctional Officers Page 2 The DSA report also suggests that Correctional Officers would receive shift differential pay. This is subject to County policy; there is no particular necessity for shift differential. In fact, the Contra Costa County deputies do not receive a shift differential. A Correctional Officer is coming into a line of work where they kr;ow they will be working all shifts. Training DSA comments indicate that, contrary to earlier analyses of the trade-offs regarding Correctional Officers, training costs would increase if the County switched to Correctional Officers. The DSA analysis posits that there would be much higher turnover rates among Correctional Officers, so more Correctional Officers than Deputies would have to be trained. In addition, the DSA notes that as many as half of the current new Deputy hires are lateral transfers, who do not need to go to the academy. There are, however, some flaws with this analysis. Even lateral transfers would have eight weeks of jail training—i.e., at least as much as Correctional Officers. While in training, the Deputies would receive a higher wage than Correctional Officers in training. Earlier reports also included in training costs the expense of overtime to backfill for some trainees. This occurs in those cases in which the new trainee fills a budgeted position, even though the trainee remains unavailable for duty. Overtime costs for Deputies would continue to be higher than for Correctional Officers. Finally, as noted above, it is not clear that turnover rates (and thus training costs) would be markedly higher for Correctional Officers than for Deputies. The DSA also believes that because of the higher turnover rates, recruitment costs would.increase under a Correctional Officer system. While it is possible that there would be marginal increases associated with the creation of a new personnel classification, even somewhat higher turnover rates would not increase the recruitment costs dramatically. In short, it seems unlikely that training costs under a Correctional Officer system would be higher; they would more likely be lower. Transition Period The Sheriff suggested it would take approximately four years to transition from Deputy Sheriffs to Correctional Officers based on hiring for 164 positions and an annual turnover rate of 7 percent. Although the average turnover rate for deputies in Contra Costa over the last ten years is 7 percent, the rate has been going down over the last two and a half years to about 5 percent. Assuming no Deputy Sheriffs would be laid off to effect a transition, a turnover rate of 5 to 7 percent, and between 164 and 174 new hires, a transition period would take between four to seven years. This does not take into account the 23 currently vacant Deputy positions or Deputy positions that become vacant through promotion to sergeant (10 in 1994). This conceivably would reduce the transition time. As positions become vacant, new Correctional Officers would be hired and Deputies would be transferred to the field until the detention facilities were completely staffed by Correctional Officers. The average and median ages of sworn staff would rise during a period of transition. In all likelihood the average and median ages would return to the current range after the Correctional Officers • Page 3 transition is complete. As of May 1, 1995, the average age of a Deputy Sheriff is 37.3, and the median age (the age at which half the deputies are above and half below) is 35.7. Very roughly, 1/3 of Deputy Sheriffs are in their 20's, 1/3 are in their 30's,and.1/3 are 40 . or above. At the end of a transition period there would be no Deputies in their 20's. If this was determined to be a problem, a longer transition period might be planned and some Deputies hired for the field during a transition. There is no evidence that older deputies are less capable than younger deputies or that an older sworn staff would create public safety problems. There are, however, some significant issues to consider regarding the "aging" of the Deputy personnel. Santa Clara County is in the final stages of a similar transition. No new Deputies have been hired since.the late 1980's. When new Deputies do begin to come onto:the force, there will be a bifurcation in the Department between older and new Deputies, a cause of concern for the administration. In addition, the Sheriff in Santa Clara County reports that he is facing serious personnel deployment problems because he has a growing number of injured and light duty officers (now about one third of the total number of deputies). He indicates that this is at least partly a result of the fact that the average age of Deputies is increasing. Not only does this stretch the patrol force thin, it also raises problems about where to assign light duty personnel. Although some would dispute this practice, the jail had previously provided the Santa Clara Sheriff positions in which to place light duty staff. With only non-detention positions available, finding places for light duty officers becomes more difficult. The Sheriff notes that he now must place light duty deputies in positions that could be filled by much lower paid clerical personnel. Recruitment/Career Ladders It is not anticipated that Correctional Officers would automatically promote to Deputy Sheriff. A Correctional Officer could apply and if s/he passed the entrance tests become a Deputy Sheriff. Correctional Officers should be on a separate track to maintain the differences in functions. Although the types of tests are similar for both positions, i.e., physical ability, written, oral, medical, psychological,background, the tests developed for the position of Correctional Officer are different than for Deputy Sheriff due to the differences in job functions. In the short run, Correctional Officers would be supervised by sworn sergeants and lieutenants, although a full career ladder with Correctional Sergeants and Lieutenants should be considered for the longer term. Availability of a career ladder might reduce the number of persons who would be interested in testing for Deputy,and reduce turnover generally. A career ladder for Correctional Officers is offered in most counties using COs through the rank.of lieutenant. The DSA indicated that there would be vacancies in surrounding agencies due to federal crime bili funds. It is difficult to predict the impact of the Crime bill at this time. From our surveys of other counties, all we can conclude now is that with the exception'of counties where large prisons opened requiring massive hiring, no'county was having difficulties in attracting enough qualified job applicants. There is no apparent reason to change the location or personnel responsible for recruitment and examination for just Correctional Officers. The present unit in the. Sheriff's Department has developed an expertise in recruitment and testing. Correctional Officers Page 4 Workers' Compensation Costs In the survey conducted for the February 27, 1995 CAO report, representatives in counties with experience in using both Deputies and Cc;-rectional Officers were as, ed if there were differences between COs and Deputies in the percent who went out on disability. No county indicated there was a difference. However, this was not a definitive study comparing workers' compensation claims between two classifications of employees. Staffing The DSA indicated concerns about whether COs would work effectively under current staff to inmate ratios. The DSA indicated Contra Costa has fewer deputies supervising inmates than three systems they visited where Deputies and Correctional Officers.-are used--San Joaquin, Sonoma and San Mateo. Contra Costa may have had fewer ­ Deputies overall in the detention facilities but the issue may be that we are stretching the staffing in detention as compared to other counties, rather than the superior ability of one classification over another. There is no evidence to suggest that a Correctional Officer is less qualified to supervise the same number of inmates a Deputy Sheriff can supervise at whatever the safe staffing ratio happens to be. Comparison of staffing ratios for the purpose of saying one classification of staff can supervise more inmates safely would be very difficult. Without an extensive effort to ensure the comparisons are considering exactly the same things (including the type of housing unit, hiring practices, the type of prisoner, whether staff numbers include rovers, escorts, etc. and whether any difference in incidents is due to the classification of the staff) is extremely problematic. There are jurisdictions with the same classification of prisoners and comparable types of housing units and staffing ratios as Contra Costa utilizing Correctional Officers. In San Mateo and San Joaquin there are no differences in the duties of the Deputies and the Correctional Officers in the jails. (Deputies do transport prisoners.) A single Correctional Officer or a single Deputy can supervise a direct supervision housing unit with up to 64 inmates. Solano County employs only Correctional Officers in detention and operates facilities similar to Contra Costa's MDF and WCDF. Solano County has a single Correctional Officer supervising only up to 46 inmates. Civilianization In the last two studies conducted in this County on the potential use of Correctional Officers there were recommendations to civilianize a number of positions in the Sheriff's Department where there was no need to have sworn officers perform particular job functions. The rationales for civilianization were potential cost savings, higher service levels especially for more mundane workloads, relieving highly trained personnel from clerical tasks, and creation of a pool of civilians in order to create career paths to assist in retention. One report (7-1-87) recommended civilianizing 23 to 53 Deputies in detention and up to 44 positions in divisions other than detention such as Patrol and Investigation, Coroner, Service, Personnel and Finance. The second report Correctional Officers • Page 5 (1989) recommended civilianizing 27 positions in detention and 12 positions in non detention divisions. In response to these recommendations, two new classifications were developed by th(�- Sheriff's Department to perform various tasks throughout the Department. Sheriff's Specialists perform duties including citizen contact, analysis, and report writing. Sheriff's Aides perform more clerical types of tasks. There are 13 Sheriff's Specialists (8 in the Custody Alternatives Bureau, two in other detention functions, two in administration and training, and one vacant). There are 25 Sheriff's Aides (1 in the crime lab, 3 in Custody Alternatives Bureau, and 21 in detention at the MDF and WCDF in central control and booking). Approximately six Aide positions had previously been I ivilian dispatchers. Deputy 1 Introducing a Deputy I step to the Deputy Sheriff classification would result is some salary savings (thus benefit savings). In Alameda County ,the Deputy I mid range salary .level is 19'percent less than the mid range Deputy lI salary. '(Monthly salary range for Deputy Sheriff I is $2,935 - $3,233.) Deputy Is, who have finished the POST Academy, complete an 18 month probationary period before promotion to Deputy Sheriff II. No additional testing is required. Detention duties of the Deputy I and Deputy II are the same. Of the 672 Deputy Sheriff positions (includes patrol) in Alameda County there are currently between 20 - 23 Deputy Is (3%). Benefits are the same for both positions. Using a 19 percent salary difference,and the mid range salary of a Deputy Sheriff in Contra Costa, .a Deputy I program in Contra Costa would have a salary savings of$13, 267 per position (and some benefit savings) for the 18 month probationary period.; about $100,000/year if 12 new (not lateral transfer) deputies are hired annually. According to the,DSA report, half of all new hires are laterals and thus would transfer directly to the Deputy II step,and would not produce any salary savings. There would be no savings in training costs for a Deputy I. Summary and Conclusions Key findings from these studies of the feasibility of.using Correctional Officers include the following. 1. Correctional Officers could staff the County's correctional facilities satisfactorily. When fully implemented, a system employing Correctional Officers would cost approximately $2 million per year less than one using Deputy Sheriffs. This assumes that a 15% salary differential would be maintained by the County in collective bargaining with whatever unit represented the Correctional Officers. 2. Most other California counties have converted, in varying degrees, to Correctional Officers staffing of jails. This conversion appears to work best when the change is fully supported by the Sheriff and by the Deputy Sheriff's Association. 3. If the transition to Correctional Officers were done without layoffs of current Deputy Sheriffs, it would take an estimated five to seven years to complete in Contra Costa County. The transition period would be shorter if the County instituted layoffs of some Correctional Officers Page 6 Deputy Sheriffs. Either approach would entail some controversy. The longer transition period would. prolong (lower level) tensions between Correctional Officers and Deputies working side by side. The shorter period, with layoffs, would probably cause more intense, but possibly shorter-lived, conflict. 4. Changing to Correctional Officers would raise a number of meet and confer issues that would,by law,have to be addressed. Correctional Officers • Page 7 Contra '` � Personnel Department f zl Costa :. -E i�"�. Administration Bldg. o: w� ,_ t5 _ ,, 651 Pine Street County A `� "��a Martinez, California 94553-1292 sT'COUs DATE: April 12, 1995 TO: George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator g�6rFROM: Leslie ,Human 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 sante. 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 we will need to establish a class series for Correctional Officers; i.e. Correctional Officer I and Correctional Officer II. 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 Deputies 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 wonk 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 Sheriff's Office. A decision would have to be made on whether Human Resources or the Sheriff's Office would be responsible for the recruitment and examination of Correctional Officers. In any case, we will probably need different medical, psychological and background tests 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 Relationship to Other 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. L'MLF:sd SHERIFF'S OFFICE Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 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 highest paid Correctional Officers in our area, reports turnover rates to be approximately 10 percent for Correctional Officers and 3 percent for Deputy Sheriffs. APR 6 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 Sheriff's 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. VYER:js cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator File: DSTOCO.MEM CONT R1a OST`1; AUNTY DEPUTY SHERI " -,,, r"2 OCIATION INC. �q COST[+ 1780 MUIR ROAD (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 th,. 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. Staffing Salmi(midi % Benefits Annual Cost Deputy Sheriff $3879 44.4% $11,203,311 Correctional Officer $3491 44.4% $ 9,920,695 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 90 of the 164 positions would qualify for differential. That would reduce any potential savings to $830,402. 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. In 1992 governmental agencies were hit with large cutbacks and hiring at all levels was stalled or reduced. The economy hasjust 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 50%. Deputy Sheriffs in those same Counties have 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. Training 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 reflects the total personnel assigned to the total:inmate populatio„ on the day of the survey. These three Counties use Deputies/Officers in all positions except for clerical people assigned to booking. This provides fora 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 Sheriff's Aides. The position of Sheriff's 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-%Zeiss report. The February 1995 reportrefers 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 civilianizing 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 builraround 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. Operations 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. Conclusions 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 l l 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. y a Contra Costa County Employees Association Z o MAILING ADDRESS — P.O. Box 222 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 2UNION HALL — 5034 DLUM ROAD,MARTINEZ, CA 94553 <�461, 0.1E�J 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 y L. Clarke _ r CLIiIT,i` General Manager EFIVED HLC:omm lags J. :r-. THE UNION FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED 1941