Improving the efficiency of public safety services
An Assessment of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office
November 2018 ______kpmg.com
Contents
Executive summary ...... 1
MCSO office-wide analysis ...... 15
Jail Division ...... 51
Criminal Division ...... 78
Judicial Enforcement Division ...... 90
Communications Division ...... 96
Fleet Analysis ...... 100
Detailed Recommendations ...... 105
Transition Roadmap ...... 117
Appendix A: Peer agency selection process ...... 119
Appendix B: Sample interview and workshop questions...... 124
Appendix C: Data received ...... 126
Appendix D: Interview and observation tracker ...... 133
© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 800056
The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Executive summary
The City of Indianapolis-Marion County (City-County), through the Office of Audit and Performance (OAP), contracted with KPMG to provide professional services to accomplish a comprehensive assessment of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) with a focus on MCSO’s performance and funding. The assessment was conducted between April and September, 2018, utilizing financial and operational data from 2005 through 2018 year to date. During the period between September and the date of this report it has gone through an exhaustive validation process with the city and the MCSO. Background and context: Since 2005, the City-County budget has more than doubled. City-County Budget, 2005-2018 This budget growth was driven in part by an income tax $1,200,000,000 increase from 1 percent to 1.65 percent in 2007. The $1,000,000,000 budget continued to climb from 2007–2010, reaching its $800,000,000 peak in 2010. After declining $600,000,000 from 2010–2013, the City- Budget County budget has increased $400,000,000 steadily over the past five years. Concurrently, there has $200,000,000 been steady population growth in the City-County, including a $0 five percent increase since the last census in 2010. Year In 2005, the City-County City-County Adopted Budget MCSO Adopted Budget Council of Indianapolis and Marion County approved the consolidation of the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and the road patrol and investigation divisions of MCSO, thereby creating the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD). Consolidation took effect in 2007. Prior to this reorganization, the Arrestee Processing Center (APC) was transferred from IPD to MCSO. Law enforcement consolidation was projected to save the City-County $8.8 million per year. A 2014 review of the financial impact of consolidation mandated by state law found that these savings did not materialize.1
In recent years, MCSO has reported challenges with declining staffing and insufficient budgets to achieve its mission. Citing budget constraints, in 2017, MCSO announced it planned to discontinue arrestee transportation services, arrestee identification services, or inmate/arrestee medical security for other law enforcement agencies in the City-County area. In its announcement, MCSO noted that these
1 “Law Enforcement Consolidation Review,” KSM Consulting, February 2014
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 1 –
services are not mandated by statute, and that MCSO is unique in providing them, when compared to other sheriff’s offices in Indiana.
Given the focus on MCSO’s budget and portfolio, the City-County commissioned KPMG to conduct a review of MCSO’s operations, with a specific focus on arrestee service functions, a financial analysis, and review of MCSO’s vehicle fleet. The objectives and scope for this review are detailed below. Project scope The scope of the assessment was to provide a review of MCSO operations with a specific focus on the below areas:
1. Evaluate arrestee service functions, including transportation, Requested level identification services, and security services provided while arrestees of depth: High receive medical treatment.
Key pieces of requested analysis included: — An assessment of the cost of the arrestee services function — A full staffing analysis — A benchmarking scan of leading practices and allocation of resources — An assessment of potential efficiency opportunities — An assessment of the use of supplies and contracts associated with arrestee services — Recommendations for process improvements — A description of and roadmap to implementing detailed recommendations.
Requested level of 2. Conduct a financial analysis of the MCSO budget. depth: Moderate
Focus areas for the financial analysis included: — The allocation and sufficiency of budget funding for MCSO
— The sufficiency of funding level to fulfill constitutional and statutory functions
— Staffing, overtime, and vehicle fleet models for operations — The sufficiency of funding level required to fulfill and sustain operations.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 2 –
Requested level of 3. Conduct an evaluation of the MCSO vehicle fleet. depth: Low
The deliverables requested included: — An inventory of all vehicles used in the arrestee and inmate transportation process, including purchase date, funding source, vehicle type, accessories, and all relevant information — An assessment of the current condition of all vehicles used in arrestee or inmate transportation — An assessment of the guidelines for determining which arrestee services positions are assigned take-home cars.
Methodology KPMG focused this assessment on creating actionable insights related to the MCSO Steering Committee’s key questions for success. KPMG received a large amount of data from MCSO, more than 150 documents and data sets. All data was validated with MCSO stakeholders, and additional data requests were made where necessary to ensure completeness, consistency, and data quality. Where data quality was a concern, KPMG used its professional experience to generate assumptions—which are outlined in the relevant sections of this report and were validated by the City-County—or exclude data that appeared unreliable.
KPMG conducted independent analysis of raw data received from the City-County, from MCSO, and from publicly available sources of information. This analysis focused on identifying trends, correlations and root causes of changes in demand, staffing levels, overtime, and expenditures across MCSO. While trends were identified to highlight the increase in demand from arrests and criminal warrants, the identification of all the root causes of this demand were not within the scope of this assessment as much of this demand is generated through the courts and other arresting agencies. However, further information on demand drivers would be identified through the implementation of KPMG’s recommendations. The analysis incorporates historical data and 2018 data whenever possible, many sections rely most heavily on 2015–2017 data, the three most current years with complete data at the time the assessment was conducted.
KPMG relied on a robust sampling of qualitative and quantitative research to conduct this assessment, including:
A benchmarking Interviews with Law MCSO staffing scan of MCSO Observations enforcement and operations comparable leadership and and site visits industry leading data Agencies line staff practices
The team employed a five-pronged approach to gather and analyze this information: Conducting a benchmarking scan of peer agency practices: The first phase was to compare funding, demand, and staffing data across comparative agencies, as determined by their size, population, and geography relative to Marion County. Compiling organizational and financial information: The second phase involved working with MCSO divisions to compile data about the office’s operations, performance, staffing, and finances.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 3 –
The team concurrently conducted more than 20 hours of observations, tours, and interviews to verify this data and address any gaps. Assessing the efficiency and performance of MCSO operations: Based on the data gathered, KPMG evaluated the performance of MCSO operations office-wide and at the division, section, and unit level. This analysis focused on raw data collected by KPMG. Analyses previously commissioned or conducted by MCSO provided context but were not utilized in KPMG’s analysis. Conducting a review of inventory and fleet: The fourth phase included an inventory of the MCSO fleet, assessment of fleet lifecycle, and evaluation of the take-home car policy. Developing detailed recommendations for efficiencies: Finally, KPMG developed a menu of recommendations that, if implemented, would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of MCSO operations. KPMG provided MCSO leadership and the project steering committee with multiple updates with initial findings. The team then conducted validation meetings and sought feedback from steering committee members to refine and build upon those findings, which are included in this report. Commendations During the initial phase of assessment for the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, a range of commendations were identified based on interviews, workshops, direct observations by KPMG, and feedback from MCSO employees.
Office-wide MCSO recognizes that there is not pay parity within MCSO and is making strides to correct this disparity, which could improve recruitment and retention in addition to improving morale within MCSO. MCSO utilizes the services of approximately 70 reserve deputies for operations throughout MCSO. Reserve deputies are paid $5 per year and allocated a take-home vehicle. The use of reserve deputies reduces costs and provides resiliency throughout MCSO.
MCSO and the Office of Finance and Management (OFM) have also collaborated to maximize available funding resources; for example, OFM was able to free up nearly $3 million in the MCSO budget in 2017 to be spent on other priorities as the City made a $2.4 million uncontrollable debt service payment while health insurance costs decreased by several hundred thousand dollars.
Jail Division MCSO is making a conscious effort to change the force mix within its jail operations staffing. In doing so, MCSO is following a national trend within corrections of shifting to a detention deputy-focused staffing model to provide security within jail facilities. Compared to sworn deputies, detention deputies are trained to carry out duties specifically within a correctional environment and do not have sworn powers. Detention deputies do not carry firearms, and as a result, cannot independently escort inmates outside of a jail facility. However, as firearms are not brought into MCSO jails, this restriction does not impair their ability to provide security within MCSO jails.
Due to their more limited responsibilities, detention deputies earn less than their sworn deputy counterparts. MCSO deputies earn a starting salary of $35,123, with some roles eligible for annual pay increases of up to $45,669. Detention deputies earn $32,000 per year, regardless of experience.
There are currently 212 deputies and 51 detention deputies assigned to the jail. MCSO intends to reverse this mix in the coming years to increase the share of detention deputies as attrition occurs. Successful
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 4 –
implementation of this reversed ratio would yield approximately $2 million in savings, according to project team estimates. MCSO also introduced the position of Jail Control Operator, a civilian position, in 2017 to reduce staffing costs and release capacity within jail operations.
The Jail Commander has a significant focus on data and data-driven decision making. This can be seen through the recent jail length of stay study conducted to inform demand management decisions. KPMG encourages the tracking and use of data to drive decisions. Looking ahead, there is room for increased automation: currently, data is primarily collected through manual processes and occupies a portion of the time of approximately 20 staff per week.
MCSO cross-utilizes staff throughout the jail division. Staff are flexed on shifts across multiple areas of operation including housing units, wagon transportation, and medical security. The cross-utilization of staff creates resiliency and is an effective method to attempt to meet demand.
MCSO currently employs behavioral managers, civilians who work with inmates while they are in custody to prepare them for successful reentry into the community. By working to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for justice-involved individuals, this program can help reduce future demand for costly MCSO jail services. While the theory of change behind this program is strong, implementing procedures to track outcomes for participants would allow for strengthened management of the program, an assessment of its effectiveness, and continuous revision and improvement to maximize results.
Judicial Enforcement Division The Public Services section has implemented a number of measures to reduce cost and manage demand. The introduction of facility security specialists, a civilian position for college students, has allowed for the reduction of building security costs. Demand management techniques have also been applied through the closure of certain building entrances and locking doors overnight to reduce the number of staff required to staff entrances.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 5 –
Overall summary of findings Staffing and funding levels at MCSO have not increased in recent years to match growth in demand.
Increasing demand: Between 2015 and 2017, arrests grew by 7 percent, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and the MCSO average daily jail population grew from 86 percent of MCSO’s daily jail capacity to 101 percent of jail capacity. Looking beyond the Jail Division, the number of sexual and violent offenders (SOVO) monitored by MCSO grew by 15 percent, the number of criminal warrants served grew by 137 percent, and the number of protective orders received grew by 112 percent.
Flat inflation-adjusted budgets: In nominal terms, MCSO expenditures grew 4 percent from 2015 to 2017. When inflation is adjusted out of the nominal increases, MCSO expenditures grew by 0.6 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms during this period.2
The MCSO adopted budget grew by just 2 percent in nominal terms from 2015 to 2017. In inflation- adjusted dollars, the adopted budget had declined 2 percent in 2017 compared to its 2005 level. The revised budget, which includes additional appropriations later in the budget cycle, grew by 1.2% from 2015 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted terms.
The adopted budget for FY 2018 held MCSO funding approximately flat at its 2017 level in nominal dollars. As this report was completed during the FY 2017 - FY 2018 budget year, actual expenditures for the full year were not available. At $116 million, MCSO’s adopted budget for FY 2019 is 2% larger in nominal terms than its FY 2018 adopted budget.
Decreasing staffing levels: Staffing across MCSO fell by 7 percent from 2015–2017. MCSO’s total employee attrition rate increased during this period from 21 percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017. This level of attrition is at the high end of national annual attrition rates within the national corrections industry, which range between 12 percent and 25 percent.3
The rate of attrition appears to be accelerating in particular within the Jail Division. While the Division’s staffing fell by 11 percent from 2015-2017, staffing declined more acutely in 2018, falling an additional 13 percent from 442 in August 2017 to 386 staff as of August 2018. With this reduction of 56 employees, Jail Division staffing now stands 22 percent below its 2015 level. In recent years, the attrition rate for detention deputies, a position that only exists within the Jail Division, has hovered at approximately 43-44 percent. A portion of this attrition may be attributable to detention deputies transferring internally within the Office to become deputies.
Growing overtime: Overtime expenditures have increased across MCSO as staffing has fallen and demand has increased. MCSO’s overtime more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, increasing 128 percent from $2.1 million in 2015 to $4.8 million in 2017.
In focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff noted that MCSO’s pay scale is one driver of attrition and vacancies — and, as a result, overtime. This finding was supported by KPMG’s analysis of publicly available salary information in Indiana.4 This information examined total annual take-home pay, which includes both salary and overtime income. For each of the five assessed positions, the mean annual pay
2 Inflation calculations are drawn from StatsIndiana, the statistical data utility for Indiana housed at Indiana University. StatsIndiana’s inflation tool utilizes data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers. 3 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et al. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
4 The project team utilized publicly available Employee Compensation Report published through the Indiana Gateway for Government Units. This analysis is detailed on pages 36-44 of this report.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 6 –
offered by Marion County was less than the peer agency average (defined as the average of the mean take-home pay of the comparison group). Despite high levels of overtime, MCSO deputies made 7 percent less in annual take-home pay than their peers; detention deputies earned 6 percent less; sergeants earned 22 percent less, and dispatchers earned 17 percent less.
Recommendations: To maximize effectiveness, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and Human Resources (HR) policies that drive effective performance and employee assessment. MCSO’s vacancy rate is influenced by a number of factors, including overall employment rates in Indiana and in the City-County. However, bringing salaries in line with the Indiana market average is a smart first step with the potential to help fill vacancies, retain high quality employees, and improve morale across MCSO divisions.
It may take years for the City-County to bring MCSO salaries in line with the market average, should it choose to do so. Given this reality, this report outlines a menu of additional recommendations to maximize efficiency and effectiveness across MCSO under the current operating model. The expected timeframe for implementation varies across these recommendations, some of which could take effect immediately while others would require additional study or a longer implementation timeline by MCSO or the City-County. These recommendations are listed in the table below and discussed in-depth in the Detailed Recommendations section of the report on pages 104-115.
Divisions, Full Potential estimated Recommendation sections, or description benefits and cost impact units affected on page(s): 1. Expand data collection practices MCSO-wide Expanded data collection will 107 to allow for complete tracking of enable the development of staff supply and demand optimized schedules that match staffing supply and shift patterns to most efficiently meet projected demand. 2. Implement demand-based MCSO-wide An estimated 10 percent 107 scheduling reduction in resource supply hours while maintaining service levels.5 MCSO will likely need to hire given increased demand; however, reducing the number of resource hours needed by 10 percent would yield approximately $3 million per year in cost avoidance through reduced salary expenditures. 3. Adopt policies to govern and MCSO-wide Efficient use of overtime to 112-113 optimize MCSO’s use of overtime manage spikes in demand, allowing for a targeted 10
5 Estimates are drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 7 –
Divisions, Full Potential estimated Recommendation sections, or description benefits and cost impact units affected on page(s): percent reduction in overtime expenditures.6 Such a reduction would yield $480,000 in cost reductions per year. 4. Implement optimized systems to MCSO-wide Potential cost efficiencies of 107-110 guide Prioritization, Tasking and approximately $320,000 per Coordination, and Routing year. 5. Transition to risk-based model for SOVO Section Potential cost efficiencies of 108 monitoring the City-County’s $510,000–$650,000 per year. sexual and violent offenders population 6. Implement practices to allow for Arrestee Potential cost avoidance of 105-107 demand management within Transportation $320,000 per year. Arrestee Transportation Section Section 7. Enact internal pay parity across Jail Division Increased morale, retention, 112 MCSO divisions Criminal Division and employee performance.7 Judicial Enforcement Division 8. Bring MCSO 9. Redesign pay MCSO-wide Increased morale, retention, 110-112 pay in line and and employee performance. with market promotion Reductions in attrition-related average pathways to recruiting, equipment, and incentivize training costs of $760,000– performance $900,000 per year can defray and retention the cost of pay raises. Improved recruiting and retention of detention deputies will also be necessary to achieve the potential $2 million in cost reductions associated with recommendation 10 below.
6 Estimates are drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative given a typical range of potential reduction of 10-20% given other client experiences. 7 In nearly every workshop and interview, employees cited MCSO’s pay and promotion pathways as a disincentive to build a career at the agency. Research and organizational design theory assert that rewards and promotion incentives can affect employee performance. For more information, see: “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf; or Jay R. Galbraith, “The Star Model,” http://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 8 –
Divisions, Full Potential estimated Recommendation sections, or description benefits and cost impact units affected on page(s): 10 Implement planned force mix Jail Division Potential cost reductions of 111 changes to allow for a detention approximately $2 million per deputy-based staffing model for year. the Jail Division
11. Demand management Jail Division; Potential cost avoidance of 114-115 (jail bed diversion programs) City-County $3.5 million–$13.8 million per Council or Office year; the level of savings of Financial depends on programs Management implemented. support required
Roadmap to implementation The figure below outlines a potential three year implementation plan for the recommendations above, with a further suggested Transition Roadmap provided on page 117 within this document.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 9 –
Key questions Following commencement of the assessment, KPMG asked the steering committee to determine measures of success. The committee provided KPMG with four key questions to guide the analysis. The table below provides high level responses to each of these questions, with additional details contained throughout the report:
Has MCSO been appropriately funded to complete its designated functions? Absent any changes to the current MCSO operating model and requisite data, KPMG finds that MCSO has not been sufficiently funded to complete its designated functions. MCSO’s budget has declined in real terms (dollars adjusted for inflation) even as demand for sheriff office services has grown. This report recommends changes to the MCSO operating model that could enable efficiencies and relieve fiscal constraints through cost avoidance and cost savings. As of 2017, MCSO’s adopted budget had declined by 2 percent in real terms from its 2005 level. Adjusted for inflation, MCSO’s 2005 adopted budget of $92 million would equate to approximately $118 million in 2017. In contrast, MCSO’s FY 2017 adopted budget was approximately $114 million. Additionally, the budgets adopted by the City-County have Funding consistently been insufficient to cover MCSO operations. Since 2012, total MCSO expenditures have exceeded MCSO’s adopted budget nearly every year, resulting in additional appropriations. Demand has grown across MCSO in recent years, even as funding has remained relatively flat. The MCSO adopted budget fell by 2 percent in real terms from 2015 to 2017, when inflation is adjusted out of nominal increases. Accounting for additional appropriations, MCSO’s revised budget grew by just 1.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms during this period. Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and the jail population increased from an average of 86 percent to 101 percent of total capacity. This increased demand may stem in part from an uptick in arrests in the City-County, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to 2017, and from the effects of House Enrolled Act 1006 (2015), which dictates that individuals convicted of certain low-level felonies serve their sentences at the county, rather than state, level. Looking beyond the Jail Division, the number of sexual or violent offenders monitored by MCSO increased by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017; the number of criminal warrants served increased by 137 percent, and the number of protective orders received increased by 112 percent. What is needed to enhance MCSO’s performance going forward? As listed in the “Recommendations” table above, KPMG identified a number of operational efficiencies to reduce cost and increase performance and effectiveness. These recommendations are outlined in greater depth in the detailed recommendations section of the report on pages 104-115. Strategic investment by the Mayor and City-County Council is recommended to enable the implementation of these reforms and their corresponding return on investment.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 10 –
What is the cost of providing arrestee transport? It is difficult to estimate the true cost of arrestee transport due to gaps in MCSO’s current data collection processes. MCSO’s annual expenditures on arrestee transportation have remained relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017. This figure, however, may not capture the true cost of arrestee transport because the Jail Division cross-utilizes staff across sections and units. Wagon drivers are at times temporarily reassigned to intake or jail operations based on the needs of the jail on a particular day. Expenditures on arrestee transportation exceeded the budgeted amount from 2015 to 2017 by an average of $0.3 million per year, or 17 percent. Arrestee transportation consumes approximately 2 percent of total MCSO expenditures. As detailed on pages 105-110, MCSO may be able to reduce the cost of providing arrestee transportation by investing in optimized demand management, routing, and tasking and coordination systems. What is a short-term and long-term strategy to deal with arrestee transport, relying on funding either through the Sheriff’s Office or other means? Data suggest that a significant number of arrestees are brought into MCSO jail facilities each year for low-level offenses, including charges such as driving while suspended, possession of marijuana, public intoxication, and possession of paraphernalia among the most common charges for MCSO Arrestee inmates. More than 60 percent of MCSO inmates have a length of stay of transport less than five days. The City-County can reduce demand for arrestee transport through a range of demand management strategies, focusing in particular on these individuals with low-level offenses. As described in detail on pages 70, demand management options include: Expanding the use of summons or citations in lieu of arrest for low- level offenses Implementing a prebooking diversion program Requiring arresting agencies, rather than MCSO, to transport arrestees with medical needs to the hospital Authorizing MCSO to charge a jail access fee to arresting agencies to cover costs associated with Intake. Additionally, MCSO has a population of “superutilizers,” individuals who disproportionately consume criminal justice services and repeatedly cycle in and out of jail. Based on MCSO data, KPMG identified a cohort of individuals who are booked into MCSO jails more than 50 times each year. Repeated incarceration is unlikely to lead to improved outcomes for these individuals in the long term; rather, the City-County and MCSO may want to consider a targeted, intensive program for this superutilizer population. Finally, as detailed on pages 70-71, MCSO and the City-County can implement process improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the arrestee transportation section, such as:
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 11 –
Modify intake staffing to allow wagon drivers to drop off arrestees and immediately return to their transport responsibilities Implement a tasking and coordination system to collate demand, assess routes, and assign arrestee pickups to the appropriate wagon driver, thereby increasing efficiency and allowing for performance management.
What are the root causes of MCSO’s overtime costs? Overtime increased 128 percent from 2015 to 2017 across MCSO. This includes a 142 percent increase in overtime usage in the Jail Division, where overtime expenditures grew from 64 percent of total MCSO overtime costs in 2015 at $1.6 million to 73 percent of total overtime costs in 2017 at $3.5 million. As responsibilities were transferred from the Criminal Division to the Judicial Enforcement Division, overtime in the Judicial Enforcement Division increased by 628 percent, from $69,000 in 2015 to $504,000 in 2017. By 2017, the Judicial Enforcement Division had grown to become the second largest consumer of overtime in MCSO, at 10 percent of total expenditures. These increases in overtime result from increasing demand office-wide coupled with reduced staffing, or staffing increases that have not kept pace with demand. In the Jail Division, bookings grew by 11 percent from 2015 to 2017, and the average daily jail population increased from an average of 86 percent to 101 percent of capacity. This increase in demand was accompanied by an 11 percent reduction in staffing. In the Criminal Division’s Warrants Section, where overtime has increased by 25 percent, the number of warrants served has increased by 137 percent while staffing has increased by just 30 percent. MCSO’s staffing reductions primarily stem from difficulties hiring and Overtime retaining employees to fill MCSO’s allocated positions. At 21– 24 percent, costs MCSO’s attrition rate is at the high end of national averages for annual attrition at corrections agencies, which range between 12 percent and 25 percent.8 For detention deputies, the annual attrition rate is greater than 40 percent. Some of this attrition may reflect the fact that detention deputies commonly transfer internally within MCSO to move into deputy positions. In focus groups and interviews, staff across MCSO reported that the office’s challenges with recruiting and retention stem from a salary scale that is not in line with the market average. KPMG’s analysis supports this observation. The table on the following page uses publicly available salary information, published through the Indiana Gateway for Government Units, to compare MCSO staff’s take-home pay to that of staff at nine other comparison counties in Indiana. Take-home pay includes both an individual’s base salary and overtime pay. Even taking into account high levels of overtime across MCSO, MCSO staff earn from 3 to 22 percent less than their peers at nearby agencies. As MCSO is one of the largest,
8 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 12 –
and therefore busiest, sheriff’s offices in Indiana, this means that MCSO staff can gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities by transferring to neighboring sheriff’s offices.
Position MCSO average Peer agency Percent take-home pay average: take-home variance Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $52,913 -5% Detention Deputy $39,449 $40,738 -3% Sergeant $50,631 $61,956 -22% Court Security $33,742 $37,380 -11% 911 Dispatcher $36,929 $43,105 -17%
The full salary analysis is available on pages 36-44 of this report. Are there opportunities for efficiencies? A menu of opportunities for efficiencies has been identified in the Detailed Recommendations section of this report on pages 104-115. MCSO can Overtime optimize its current staffing by implementing a demand-based staffing costs model, with the goal of aligning employee supply with demand for services. A staffing and scheduling analysis can identify optimal shift patterns by section and by post to help ensure staff are scheduled when they are needed, and MCSO is not overstaffed during slow periods. Based on previous projects, optimized scheduling can allow sheriff’s offices to achieve an estimated 10 percent reduction in resource supply hours while maintaining service levels. If implemented, such a reduction would allow an estimated $3 million per year in cost avoidance through reduced salary and overtime expenditures. Additionally, MCSO’s overtime will fall if the organization can hire and retain employees, thereby reducing the number of funded vacancies. To achieve this, MCSO, working with the Mayor and City-County Council, should bring its salaries in line with the market average and redesign its pay and promotion pathways to allow opportunities for career growth. Finally, overtime use can be efficient in some instances, for example to manage brief or irregular periods of high demand. MCSO’s current policies regarding overtime, however, do not ensure it is used intentionally or efficiently. Staff in the Jail Division reported they sometimes show up at the jail unscheduled rather than committing to a particular overtime shift, knowing they will be utilized if present. MCSO’s staffing and scheduling optimization analysis should include an assessment of which sections might benefit from regularly scheduled overtime shifts aligned with peaks in demand. A targeted 10 percent reduction in overtime expenditures through overtime optimization would allow for $480,000 in savings per year.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 13 –
What is the cost of providing security for inmates and arrestees at the hospital? MCSO’s annual expenditures on inmate medical security have remained relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017. This analysis, however, may underestimate total personnel costs generated by inmate medical security. At the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain charges require 24-hour supervision by deputies, known as “sitters.” The need for sitters can sharply increase demand for deputies at Eskenazi. When demand for deputies is high, MCSO pulls deputies from other posts, including arrestee transportation and jail operations. The flexing and cross- utilization of resources are recommended and allow MCSO to efficiently utilize its available staffing to meet demand. However, movement of resources among sections is not recorded, and therefore, an accurate + picture of staffing requirements is difficult to determine. Current staffing levels do not reflect the need for staff at Eskenazi or, consequently, the Medical personnel cost for all staff posted there. security costs Expenditures on inmate medical security exceeded the allocated budget by an average of $168,000 or 16 percent from 2015 to 2017. Based on current data, medical security costs constitute approximately 1 percent of MCSO expenditures. Are there opportunities for efficiencies? KPMG has identified several opportunities for efficiencies. MCSO covers medical security costs for arrestees who are taken directly from the field to the hospital, even though these individuals have not been booked into an MCSO jail facility. The Mayor and City-County could consider two options to reduce this cost burden on the MCSO budget: First, the City-County could require the arresting agency to retain responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital and providing medical security until the arrestee is medically cleared to enter an MCSO jail. MCSO would be responsible for protective services only for inmates who have been booked into the jail. Alternatively, the City-County may determine that as a custody agency, MCSO is best equipped to provide protective services to arrestees at the hospital. In this case, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting agency to reimburse MCSO for the fully loaded cost of transportation and protective services provided to the arrestee. In both scenarios, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting agency, rather than MCSO, to assume responsibility for the arrestees’ medical expenses until they are medically clear to enter an MCSO facility. Additionally, MCSO can improve measurement and forecasting of demand for deputies at Eskenazi by tracking the section’s actual staffing, including deputies shifted there temporarily. This enhanced data collection can enable optimized scheduling and overtime usage.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 14 –
MCSO office- wide analysis
MCSO office-wide analysis
MCSO organizational structure and responsibilities
Overview of MCSO responsibilities The City of Indianapolis-Marion County is the 16th largest city in the United States. Within the City- County, MCSO is responsible for the management and operations of all jail facilities, emergency communications, criminal investigations, the security of Marion County courts and City-County buildings, the collection of taxes under tax warrants, and sex and violent offender registration and monitoring. The Sheriff’s road patrol function was consolidated with the former Indianapolis Police Department in 2007, thereby creating the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD).
MCSO organizational structure (2018) Headed by Sheriff John R. Layton, MCSO is composed of six divisions: an Administration Division, Criminal Division, Judicial Enforcement Division, Communications Division, Jail Division, and Reserves Division. Certain functions — such as internal affairs and public relations — are located within the Sheriff’s Executive Office.
Marion County Sheriff John R. Layton Sheriff’s Office Pension Services Internal Affairs April 16, 2018
Chief Deputy Eva Talley – Sanders
Colonel Louis Dezelan
Information Public Information Technology
Administration Communications Criminal Reserves Jail Judicial Enforcement
Assist Assist Assist Assist Finance Assist Commander Commander Commander Commander Commander
Section Training 911 Training Admin Assist Commander
Human Reserve Chaplains Dispatch Warrants Marshals Building Security Resources Gangs/Analyst Warrants Programs FBI ATF Fusion Quartermaster Community Fleet Liaison Sheriff’s Jail Ops Security Intake Court Security Response Team Accreditation Tape Research Reserve SO/VO Special Records Inmate Services Security Transport Process Planning Digital Deputies Evictions/ Tech Access Special Events Replevins Keys Reserve SOR Classification Transport Transport Warrants
K-9 Float Squad Tax Collection Real Estate Foreclosures
MCSO Assessment Final Report © 2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited network of independent member firms a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. registered trademarks or trademarks of liability partnership and the U.S. affiliated with KPMG International The KPMG name and logo are KPMG International. 3 member firm of the KPMG Cooperative (“KPMG– 16 International”), –
The table and figures below illustrate MCSO’s staffing, broken down by employee classification and organizational division, as of August 2018, as detailed in the MCSO 2019 Budget Request. The Jail Division is the largest division with MCSO and employs nearly half of the office’s employees. The Judicial Enforcement Division and Communications Division employ 15-20 percent of MCSO’s workforce each, while the Criminal Division, Administration Division, and Executive Office combined employ the remaining 19 percent of the workforce.
As of August 2018, approximately half of MCSO employees were deputies. Civilians made up 43 percent of the MCSO workforce while detention deputies, a position introduced in 2015, constituted the remaining 6 percent. MCSO is pursuing a transition to a detention deputy-based staffing model in its jails. Compared to deputies, detention deputies are eligible to carry out a more limited set of duties that are tailored to providing security in a correctional environment. As a result, detention deputies earn less than their deputy counterparts. A detention deputy-based staffing model would provide MCSO with a lower cost option to provide jail security as compared to its historical practice of staffing its jails with deputies. A discussion the agency’s force mix transition is detailed on pages 29 and 111.
MCSO staffing by employee classification and organizational division
Detention Training Share of Organizational division Deputies deputies academy Civilians Total Staffing
Administration Division 18 0 20 29 67 8%
Criminal Division 65 0 0 13 78 9%
Communications Division 5 0 10 121 136 16%
Jail Division 212 51 0 123 386 46%
Judicial Enforcement 118 0 0 42 160 19% Division
Executive Office 10 0 0 10 20 2%
Total 428 51 30 338 847 100% Source: MCSO 2019 Budget Request, August 2018
MCSO staffing by division Force mix: deputies, detention deputies, and civilians 2% 8% 9% 4% 19% 16% 46% 40% 51%
Administration Division Criminal Division Communications Division 6% Jail Division Deputies Detention Deputies Judicial Enforcement Division Executive Office Civilians Training Academy
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 17 –
Expenditures, staffing, overtime, and demand by division or section, 2015–2017 The table below illustrates trends in adopted budget, actual expenditures, staffing, overtime, and demand across MCSO. Across the agency, demand is increasing while staffing has declined, and budget allocations have remained approximately flat in nominal terms.
Division/ Adopted Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand* Section Budget
MCSO Demand has increased across most divisions and +2% +5% -5% +128% sections in recent years, as detailed below.
Jail division Jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and the jail population +13% c -23% -4% +142% increased from 86 percent to 101 percent of total capacity.
Arrestee Number of transportation arrestees (Jail division) transported by MCSO increased 9 percent. Share of arrestees -4% +4%t -25% +200% c c transported by MCSO grew from 88 percent in 2015–2016 to 89 percent in 2017– 2018.
Inmate medical 2015 demand data security (Jail unavailable division) Number of arrestees -1% +11% +0% +146% transported to Eskenazi Hospital grew by 16 percent from 2016 to 2017.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 18 –
Division/ Adopted Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand* Section Budget
Criminal division Some division responsibilities were reassigned to other divisions -32% -46% -50% -33% in 2016, resulting in a significant funding and staffing decrease.
Sexual and Number of violent offender offenders registry (Criminal monitored +62% -20% -25% -15% division) increased 15 percent.
Warrants Number of (Criminal warrants served division) +182% +25% +30% +24% increased 137 percent.
Judicial Division enforcement responsibilities division increased in 2016, resulting in significant funding and staffing increases. Number of +32% +116% +88% +632% protective orders received increased more than 112 percent. Number of arrests conducted decreased 28 percent.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 19 –
Division/ Adopted Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand* Section Budget
Communications Calls received division decreased 17 percent. Text demand is increasing; The Division began -3% +0% -8% +52% allow for text- based communication in 2015; 47,000 emergency text sessions in 2017.
*Unless otherwise specified, changes in demand show difference from 2015 to 2017.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 20 –
MCSO budget trends
MCSO budget growth since 2005:
MCSO adopted budget, actual expenditures, and additional appropriations, 2005 – 2017 $130,000,000 $120,000,000 $110,000,000 $100,000,000
$90,000,000 Funding $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
Actual expenditures Additional appropriation Adopted budget Inflation-adjusted adopted budget (2005 dollars)
In nominal terms, the MCSO adopted budget grew by 23 percent from 2005–2017, from $92 million in 2005 to $114 million in 2017. This growth has slowed in recent years, with the adopted budget growing just 3 percent from 2015 to 2016 and then declining slightly in 2017. The FY 2018 adopted budget held funding approximately level in nominal terms at its FY 2017 level. At $116 million, MCSO’s adopted budget for FY 2019 is 2% larger in nominal terms than its FY 2018 adopted budget.
Additionally, this growth in the MCSO adopted budget has not been sufficient to keep up with inflation.9 When inflation is adjusted out of nominal increases, MCSO’s adopted budget has declined by 2 percent since 2005 in real dollars. When adjusted for inflation, MCSO’s 2017 budget of $114 million is equivalent to just $91 million in 2005 dollars, below MCSO’s 2005 funding level. From 2015 to 2017, the MCSO adopted budget fell by 2 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. As detailed in the table on pages 18-20, demand grew across most MCSO functions during this period.
In recent years, the adopted budget for MCSO approved by the City-County Council and the mayor has been insufficient to cover MCSO’s operating expenses. Since 2012, total MCSO expenditures have exceeded the adopted budget each year as additional appropriations have been required. Each year, MCSO received additional appropriations ranging from $2 million to $9 million per year to cover operating expenses, modest salary increases for deputies and dispatchers, fleet purchases, and other expenses.
9 Inflation calculations are drawn from StatsIndiana, the statistical data utility for the state, housed at Indiana University. StatsIndiana’s inflation tool utilizes data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 21 –
MCSO requested budget, adopted budget, and actual expenditures
Year Requested budget Adopted budget Actual expenditures 2015 $115,194,990 $111,809,407 $115,739,480 2016 $117,593,323 $114,814,771 $113,539,113 2017 $123,900,000 $113,788,344 $120,361,467 2018 (actual expenditures through $125,849,057 $113,124,262 $100,583,226 11/15/2018)
MCSO requested versus adopted budget Since 2015, the differential between the budget requested by MCSO and MCSO budget request versus adopted budget the budget approved by the City- $130,000,000 County Council has grown. In 2015 $125,000,000 and 2016, MCSO received 2-3 $120,000,000 percent less funding than it $115,000,000
requested, a gap of approximately $110,000,000 Funding $3–4 million each year. In 2017, this $105,000,000 gap grew to 8 percent, or $10 million, $100,000,000 and in 2018, this differential reached 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 percent, or $12.5 million. The Year requested budget for MCSO for fiscal year 2019 was approximately $121 MCSO Adopted Budget Budget Request million. At $116 million, MCSO’s adopted budget for FY 2019 is 2 percent larger than its FY 2018 adopted budget and 4 percent below the FY 2019 budget request, both in nominal terms.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 22 –
MCSO expenditures versus requested budget MCSO’s actual $130,000,000 expenditures met its MCSO requested budget vs actual expenditures requested budget in 2015. $125,000,000 In 2016, MCSO’s actual spending was $4 million, or $120,000,000 3 percent, below its budget request. In 2017, actual $115,000,000 expenditures were $3 million, or 3 percent, below Funding $110,000,000 the MCSO budget request. $105,000,000
$100,000,000 2015 2016 2017 Year
Actual expenditures (including additional appropriation) Budget Request
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 23 –
MCSO adopted budget compared to the overall City-County budget: The proportion of the City-County budget dedicated to MCSO has declined since 2005. In 2005 and 2006, MCSO received between 17 and 20 percent of the total adopted City-County budget. Following the separation of responsibilities between IMPD and MCSO in 2007, the MCSO share of City-County budget fell to approximately 8 percent of total City-County allocated funding. MCSO’s share of the budget grew slightly, up to 12 percent, from 2011 to 2014 as total City-County funding declined. Since 2015, as City- County overall funding has increased, MCSO’s share of funding has decreased to 11 percent of the total City-County budget.
There does not appear to be a correlation between the appropriated funding level allocated to MCSO and the increasing demand upon the MCSO % of City- Sheriff’s Office: that is, allocated budgets have not increased Year County Adopted proportionately with increases in demand. Trends in demand are Budget summarized in the table on pages 18-20 of this report and detailed by division, section, or unit in the report chapters below. 2005 17% 2006 20% City-County Budget, 2005-2018 2007 8% $1,200,000,000 2008 8% $1,000,000,000 2009 8% $800,000,000 2010 8%
$600,000,000 2011 10% Budget $400,000,000 2012 11% $200,000,000 2013 12% $- 2014 12%
2015 11%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year 2016 11% 2017 11% MCSO Adopted Budget City-County Adopted Budget 2018 11%
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 24 –
MCSO adopted budget by division From 2015–2018, the Jail Division consumed in excess of 50 percent of MCSO’s adopted budget, with an average adopted budget of $64.1 million per year. For the average and year-by-year budget for each division, please refer to the charts below.
Average adopted budget by division, 2015-2018
Administration Criminal Jail Judicial Communications Office of the Enforcement Sheriff $16.8 million $6.5 million $64.5 million $8.9 million $9.7 million $9.2 million
MCSO adopted budget by division
Office of the Sheriff
Communications
Judicial Enforcement
Division Jail Operations
Criminal Division
Administration
$20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 Budget
2018 2017 2016 2015
The Judicial Enforcement Division, Share of adopted budget, by division Communications Division, and Office of the Sheriff were allocated 8 percent of the adopted budget while 6 percent of Administration 8% 15% the adopted budget went to the Criminal 8% Division. The Administration Division Criminal 6% accounted for 15 percent of the adopted 8% budget per year on average. Jail
Judicial Enforcement
Communciations 55% Office of the Sheriff
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 25 –
MCSO budget by funding source: general fund versus public safety income allocation From 2015 to 2017, MCSO consistently received 75 percent of its funding from the county general fund, ranging from $65 to $70 million per year. Funding from the City-County’s Public Safety Income Tax (PSIT) held steady at 25 percent of funding, approximately $23–25 million per year.
MCSO budget by funding source $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000
Funding $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- 2015 2016 2017 General fund allocation Public safety tax allocation Year
PSIT funding is primarily dedicated to MCSO’s Jail Division and Judicial Enforcement Division. The Jail Division received from 70–90 percent of PSIT funding each year while the Judicial Enforcement Division received 10–23 percent. The share of PSIT funding directed to the Judicial Enforcement Division grew by 10 percent in 2017, with PSIT funding to the Jail Division falling by the same amount.
County General Fund allocation by Public Safety Income Tax Fund division, by year Allocation by division, by year $40,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000
$20,000,000 $20,000,000 Funding Funding $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $- $0
Division Division
2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 26 –
Public Safety and Criminal Justice agency adopted budgets, 2018 MCSO is the third largest public safety agency in the City-County based on budget size, as of 2018. IMPD’s adopted budget is 117 percent larger than that of MCSO while the Indianapolis Fire Department’s budget is 33 percent larger than that of MCSO.
City-County public safety agency and Criminal Justice adopted budgets, 2018
Marion County Coroner Forensic Services Agency Community Corrections Public Defender Marion County Prosecutor
Agency Superior Court MCSO Indianapolis Fire Department IMPD
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 Budget
Public Safety Income Tax Fund Public Safety Income Tax Fund allocations by agency allocations by agency, 2018 MCSO receives the majority of revenue generated 5% by the City-County’s public safety income tax, at 63 percent of the total. The Superior Court is the second largest recipient of PSIA funding at 30% 30 percent. The two agencies together receive more than 90 percent of PSIA funding as over 63% 2018, with small amounts going to the Marion County Prosecutor and Community Corrections. 2% IMPD and IFP receive the bulk of their funding through special taxing districts. Marion County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) MCSO staffing trends Community Corrections Superior Court MCSO staffing strength has reduced from 966 personnel in 2015 to 897 in 2017, a reduction of Marion County Prosecutor approximately 7 percent. From 2017 to 2018, MCSO staffing fell by 50 employees to 847 staff, an additional 6 percent. Discussion of attrition within the Sheriff’s Office is included on pages 34-35 of this report.
The Jail Division is the largest division within MCSO, employing approximately 50 percent of MCSO staff. The Judicial Enforcement Division and Communications Division employ 15-20 percent of MCSO’s
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 27 –
workforce each, while the Criminal Division, Administration Division, and Executive Office combined employ the remaining 19 percent of the workforce.
MCSO staffing by division, 2010–2018 1200
1000
800
600
400
Full Full Time Employees 200
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year
Administration Criminal Communications Jail Judicial Enforcement Office of the Sheriff
Source: Annual MCSO Budget Requests, 2010-2018
Vacancies Utilizing six point-in-time estimates from 2016-2018, the project team conducted an assessment of vacancies at MCSO – that is, positions that are funded but not filled. This analysis drew on two staffing samples per year, relying on MCSO data from February 2016, June Vacancies, MCSO-wide, 2015-2018 2016, January 2017, August 2017, February 2018, and August 2018. 200
180 Across all MCSO divisions, the 160 number of vacancies has grown by 140 168 percent since 2016 – from 67 120 vacancies in February 2016 to 176 100 vacancies in August 2018. The 80 majority of vacancies occur in the 60 Jail Division. In 2017 and 2018, 42-
48 percent of vacant positions 40 Number Number Vacancies of were deputy positions and 12-15 20 percent were detention deputy 0 positions. Across all three years of Jan-16 Aug-16 Mar-17 Sep-17 Apr-18 Oct-18 available data, more than 55 Year percent of vacancies were deputy or detention deputy positions. PSAP Control Operators, a position in the Communications Division, were consistently the third most common type of vacancy, typically constituting 7-9 percent of vacancies.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 28 –
Averaging the two 2018 Number of vacancies, 2018 average data points, 29 percent of vacancies were coded to Jail Security (51 vacancies), 14 percent 56 51 were coded to dispatch (25 vacancies), 13 percent were in Intake or APC security (23 25 vacancies), Courtline and 10 12 11 Inmate Records 10 accounted for 6 percent of vacancies each (10 Jail Security Dispatch Intake Security vacancies each), and the remaining 56 percent of APC Security Courtline Inmate Records vacancies were divided Other amongst more than 20 additional units.
MCSO salary budget and expenditures MCSO’s salary expenditures declined by 10 percent between 2015 and 2017, from $33 million to $29.5 million. MCSO’s staffing fell by 5 percent during this same period, from 955 to 911 employees. Even as its salary expenditures declined from 2015 to 2017, MCSO’s adopted salary budget grew by 6 Salary budget compared to salary and percent, from $37.5 million to $40 million. overtime expenditures $45,000,000 In focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff noted the difficulty to recruit qualified candidates $40,000,000 to fill the positions allocated to MCSO. The $35,000,000 decrease in salary expenditures and filled $30,000,000 positions, occurring at the same time as an $25,000,000 increase in adopted funding for salaries, $20,000,000 illustrates the increase in unfilled vacancies at Funding $15,000,000 MCSO. $10,000,000 $5,000,000 In conjunction with a decline in staffing and $- salary expenditures, overtime expenditures 2015 2016 2017 grew from 2015 to 2017. In fact, reductions in Year salary expenditures appear to have been largely matched by equivalent increases in overtime Salary Expenditures Overtime Expenditures spending. Salary expenditures reduced by $2.7 million from 2015 to 2016 while overtime Salary Budget expenditures increased by $2.1 million. Salary expenditures declined by an additional $625,000 from 2016 to 2017 as overtime expenditures grew by $570,000.
Combined salary and overtime expenditures remained steady from 2015 to 2017, declining marginally from $35.0 million in 2015 to $34.4 million in 2017. MCSO’s combined salary and overtime expenditures did not exceed the approved salary budget each year from 2015 to 2017. In fact, the differential between MCSO’s approved salary budget, and its combined overtime and salary expenditures grew from 2015 to 2017. In 2015, MCSO’s combined salary and overtime expenditure was $2.4 million below its salary
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 29 –
budget; by 2017, this had grown to $5.4 million. A deeper discussion of MCSO’s overtime expenditures can be found on pages 30-33 of this report.
It is important to note that overtime is compensated at a higher rate than straight time. As a result, if MCSO’s salary expenditures are being displaced by an equivalent amount of overtime spending, MCSO’s staffing level is actually declining: salary expenditures yield more staff time than overtime expenditures dollar per dollar since overtime pay is 1.5 times the normal rate amount.
Force mix As of August 2018, approximately half of MCSO employees were deputies. Civilians made up 43 percent of the MCSO workforce while detention deputies, a position introduced in 2015, constituted the remaining 6 percent. Excluding civilians — who cannot have inmate contact — approximately 80 percent of Jail Division staff were deputies while 20 percent were detention deputies. MCSO is in the process of transitioning to a detention deputy-based staffing model in its jails to reverse this ratio in the coming years. Compared to sworn deputies, detention deputies are eligible to carry out a more limited set of duties that are tailored to providing security in a correctional environment. As a result, detention deputies earn less than their sworn counterparts. A detention deputy-based staffing model thus would provide MCSO with a lower cost option to provide jail security as compared to its historical practice of staffing its jails with sworn deputies.
Successful implementation of this reversed ratio would yield approximately $2 million in cost reductions, according to project team estimates. It is worth noting that the number of detention deputies declined from FY 2017 to FY 2018, which reflects MCSO’s challenges with retention in this position.
Force mix: Deputies, detention deputies, and civilians, 2014–2018 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Share of Total Share Total of Personnel 0% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year
% Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
Source: MCSO Budget Presentations, 2015-2019
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 30 –
MCSO overtime trends Office-wide overtime expenditures Overtime usage at MCSO more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, increasing by 128 percent from $2.1 million in 2015 to $4.8 million in 2017. This increase in overtime occurred during a period in which MCSO’s total staffing fell by approximately 5 percent, or 49 employees, while demand rose across most divisions.
Annual overtime expenditure versus MCSO staffing $5,000,000 980 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 960 $3,500,000 940 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 920
$2,000,000 Staffing $1,500,000 900 $1,000,000 880
Overtime Overtime Expenditures $500,000 $0 860 2015 2016 2017 Year Total Staffing by Year Overtime by Year
The current growth in MCSO’s overtime usage originated in 2014. Overtime usage office-wide grew by 338 percent from 2013 to 2017. Overtime expenditures between 2013 and 2015 increased by approximately $1 million; however, between 2016 and 2017, overtime expenditures doubled, increasing by $2 million from 2016 to 2017.
MCSO overtime expenditures versus MCSO staffing, 2009–2017
$6,000,000 1200
$5,000,000 1000
$4,000,000 800
$3,000,000 600
$2,000,000 400 Staffnig
$1,000,000 200 Overtime Overtime Expenditures $- 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year MCSO Overtime Expenditures Staffing
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 31 –
As shown in the figure below, the rate of growth in MCSO’s overtime budget has exceeded the rate of growth of MCSO’s budget overall. MCSO’s overtime expenditures grew 128 percent during a period in which the total adopted budget grew by just 5 percent.
MCSO adopted budget versus overtime expenditures $5,000,000 $100,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $80,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $60,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $40,000,000
$1,500,000 Adopted Adopted Budget $20,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Overtime Expenditures
2015 2016 2017 Year
MCSO Adopted Budget Overtime Expenditure
MCSO’s overtime budget compared to overtime expenditures, 2012–2018 From 2012–2015, even as overtime expenditures grew by 98 percent, MCSO’s adopted budget each year accurately anticipated eventual overtime expenditures, resulting in an actual overtime expenditure in line with the adopted amount. Beginning in 2016 and 2017 however, MCSO’s actual overtime expenditures began to exceed the adopted amount. In 2016 and 2017, MCSO’s actual overtime spending had grown to 200 percent – 300 percent of the amount budgeted.
Adopted overtime budget compared to overtime expenditures
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
Overtime Funding Expenditures $2,000,000
Adopted $1,000,000 Overtime Budget $- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 32 –
As discussed previously, increases in overtime expenditures stem from rising demand across MCSO. From 2015 to 2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and jail utilization increased from an average of 86 percent to 101 percent. Looking beyond the Jail Division, the number of sexual or violent offenders monitored by MCSO increased by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017; the number of criminal warrants served increased by 137 percent, and the number of protective orders received increased by 112 percent.
Overtime by division The Jail Division is the primary Overtime expenditures by division consumer of $6,000,000 overtime within MCSO, and accounts $5,000,000 for more than two- thirds of overtime $4,000,000 expenditures each $3,000,000 year. This report examines Jail $2,000,000 Division overtime on Expenditures pages 56-57. The $1,000,000 second largest consumer of $- overtime is the 2015 2016 2017 2018 ytd Judicial Enforcement Year Division, which accounts for Administration Criminal Division Jail Operations approximately 10 percent of Judicial Enforcement MCSD Communications Office of the Sheriff overtime expenditures each year.
Overtime per employee As MCSO’s office-wide overtime usage has grown, the overtime burden per employee has increased significantly. During focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff often referred to current levels of overtime as unsustainable and contributing to burnout, errors, increased exposure to risk, and attrition. Following is a discussion and analysis of MCSO overtime use. Research supports the finding that high levels of correctional overtime can contribute to errors and reduced morale.10 Additionally, as shown in the figures below, the overtime burden is not borne equally by all staff. Particularly as overtime levels have increased agency-wide, a minority of MCSO staff have taken on a
10 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 33 –
disproportionate share of overtime hours. As of 2017, the 25th percentile of overtime workers worked 39 hours over the course of the year; the 90th percentile of overtime workers worked 566 hours.
Total annual overtime hours by Total annual overtime hours by deputy, 2015 deputy, 2017 2000 2000 1800 1800 1600 1600 1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 1000
800 800 Hours Hours worked 600 Hours worked 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 Number of deputies Number of deputies
An analysis of overtime usage since 2015 illustrates a significant increase in the volume of overtime hours worked per employee. In 2015, 775 employees worked overtime over the course of the year, approximately 81 percent of MCSO’s total workforce. Employees worked an average of 96 hours each.
In 2015, MCSO staff in the 90th percentile of overtime hours worked 237 overtime hours over the course of the year, an average of 5 hours of overtime per week.
2015 2017 Total deputies with OT hours 775 766 Average Overtime Hours Worked 96 217 Average Overtime Pay per Deputy $2,688 $6,213 90th Percentile 237 566 90th Percentile Overtime Pay $6,563 $16,842
In 2017, 766 employees worked overtime. This amounted to 84 percent of the MCSO workforce, fairly comparable to the share of MCSO who worked overtime in 2015. Yet due to the increases in MCSO’s use of overtime, MCSO staff worked an average of 217 overtime hours in 2017, an increase of 126 percent since 2015. As a result, the average employee in 2017 worked almost as many hours as the 90th percentile of overtime workers in 2015. In 2017, individuals in the 90th percentile and above of overtime hours worked 566 hours or more over the course of the year, an average of 11 hours per week and 2.5 times that of an average employee.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 34 –
MCSO attrition MCSO’s attrition rate increased from 21 percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017. This level of attrition is at the high end of national annual attrition rates within corrections, which range between 12 percent and 25 percent.11 The primary reason cited for attrition is resignations, which account for 89 percent–90 percent of turnover each year; the remaining proportion of departures were due to termination, approximately 10 percent of all departures each year.
In workshops and MCSO attrition rate and overtime expenditures, 2015– interviews, KPMG was 2017 informed that a $5,000,000 30% significant driver behind resignations is $4,000,000 25% the salary offered by 20% $3,000,000 MCSO, which appears 15% to be below the $2,000,000 10% market average
$1,000,000 Attrition Rate offered by nearby 5%
Indiana Sheriff’s Overtime expenditures $0 0% Offices. As MCSO is 2015 2016 2017 one of the largest, and Year therefore busiest, Attrition Rate Overtime Expenditures Sheriff’s Offices in Indiana, employees could gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities at neighboring sheriff’s offices. KPMG’s analysis of MCSO’s salaries as compared to nearby agencies is outlined below.
MCSO’s attrition rate for deputies fell from 14 Attrition rate by position type, 2015-2017 percent in 2015 to 11 50% percent in 2017. 40% Meanwhile, the attrition 30% rate for civilians grew from 20% 25 percent to 39 percent 10% during the same time rate Attrition period. 0% 2015 2016 2017
The attrition rate is highest Year among detention deputies. This position was Civilian Deputy Detention Deputy introduced in 2015 as an effort to reduce costs within jail operations. Compared to deputies, detention deputies are eligible to carry out a more limited set of duties that are tailored to providing security in a correctional environment. As a result, detention deputies earn less than their sworn counterparts. The use of detention deputies follows a national trend within corrections as there is no requirement to utilize only sworn deputies within jail facilities.
11 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 35 –
Since the introduction of the detention deputy position, the attrition rate has been approximately 43 percent–44 percent each year. This is significantly higher than standard attrition rates and can impact costs and operations throughout MCSO, including the office’s efforts to transition to a detention deputy- based staffing model.
High attrition increases recruitment and training costs, increases overtime costs as other employees are required to train and supplement staffing during the training period. As KPMG has observed in previous discussion, there is also an impact on employee morale and organizational culture when the staffing churn and use of overtime are so high.
This finding is supported by research, as Professor Kevin Minor and colleagues write in an article for Professional Issues in Criminal Justice:
Correctional agencies with high turnover commonly confront a shortage of high performing, experienced, and skilled personnel. The result can be suspensions and delays of activities, breakdowns of continuity and consistency, and increased likelihood of mistakes (Roseman, 1981). The personnel who are available may end up working excess overtime, which, in addition to further straining budgets, can heighten job stress and burnout…In short, high turnover often feeds on itself to intensify problems and undermine organizational effectiveness on a number of fronts.12
According to information provided in interviews and workshops, MCSO deputies spend 17 weeks in training at the academy and 10 days in training at the jail, approximately 18 weeks of training total. Detention deputies spend 4 weeks at the academy and 20 days at the jail, approximately 7 weeks of training total. In addition to these training costs, MCSO also spends approximately $3,830 to recruit, vet, and equip a new deputy or detention deputy. Equipment costs include three uniforms and weaponry, such as Tasers or firearm. Recruiting and vetting costs include the cost of a medical and psychological exam, background check, and criminal law classes. The table below outlines these costs for deputies and detention deputies.
Training costs Position (salary) Equipment costs Recruitment costs Total Sheriff’s $10,200 $2,700 $1,130 $14,030 Deputy Detention $4,000 $2,700 $1,130 $7,830 Deputy
Based on current attrition rates and trainee pay rates, MCSO’s attrition-related costs ranged from approximately $1.1 to $1.4 million per year from 2015 to 2017. This figure does not include the cost of reduced productivity, overtime to cover vacancies, and low morale. Additionally, the project team conducted analysis on the rate of turnover within the Sheriff’s Office using MCSO attrition data. MCSO deputies on average stay with the department for 7.3 years while detention deputies stay for 1.3 years on average. As a result, in a 5 year period, MCSO spends approximately $9,600 on recruiting, training, and equipment costs to keep a deputy position staffed. Due to their high turnover rate, MCSO spends approximately $30,100 on these costs for a detention deputy position in a five year period.
12 Kevin I Minor et. al, “Understanding Staff Perceptions of Turnover in Corrections,” Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 4, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 36 –
MCSO salaries
Internal pay parity: Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division and Judicial Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for MCSO staff, given the dangers that can accompany field operations in the Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions.
Currently, all deputies across MCSO receive the same starting salary; however, deputies in the Jail Division or in the Courtline Section of the Judicial Enforcement Division are eligible for annual pay increases based on experience, while deputies in other sections and divisions are not. As of 2018, all deputies—regardless of division—earn a starting salary of $35,123. Based on experience, deputies in the Jail Division or Courtline Section receive pay increases each year, topping out at $45,669 after seven years. Deputies outside of the Jail Division or Courtline Section are not eligible for these increases and earn $35,123 regardless of experience, leaving them with lower salaries than their peers. MCSO has developed a plan to achieve pay parity across divisions and should dedicate the funding necessary to implement this plan.
Peer county comparisons: KPMG compared MCSO salaries with publicly available salary data from two sets of comparison counties, as shown in the tables and map below: the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County and the “donut” counties that border Marion County.
Population (2017)
Marion County, IN 950,082 Comparison cohort: Lake County, IN 485,640 Large Allen County, IN 372,877 counties Hamilton County, IN 323,747
St. Joseph County, IN 270,434
Elkhart County, IN 205,032
Population (2017) Marion County, IN 950,082
Hamilton County, IN 323,747
Comparison Hendricks County, IN 163,685 cohort: Adjacent Johnson County, IN 153,897 counties Hancock County, IN 74,985 Morgan County, IN 69,713 Boone County, IN 65,875 Shelby County, IN 44,395
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 37 –
The table below illustrates the cost of living variation between Marion County and the comparison group. Using data from the Indiana Institute for Working Families,13 the table lists an estimated self-sufficiency wage for a household of two adults and two children in each county. The self-sufficiency wage in Marion County is $50,849. The other comparison counties have annual self-sufficiency wages ranging from $48,701 to $54,619, with the exception of Hamilton County which appears to be an outlier at $60,630. Excluding Hamilton County, the comparison group has an average self-sufficiency wage of $51,297, approximately $400 above the self-sufficiency wage for Marion County.
County Self-sufficiency wage for a household of two adults, two children Marion County, IN $50,849
Hamilton County, IN $60,639 Lake County, IN $54,619
Cost of Hendricks County, IN $53,105 living Johnson County, IN $53,056 comparison: Hancock County, IN $52,088
Elkhart County, IN $51,187
St. Joseph County, IN $50,848
Boone County, IN $50,672
Morgan County, IN $49,898
Allen County, IN $48,800
Shelby County, IN $48,701
Drawing on publicly available salary data for the comparison groups and the City-County, KPMG compared salaries for the following five Sheriff’s Office positions:14 Sheriff’s Deputy Detention Deputy Sergeant Court Security 911 Dispatcher
13 “Indiana Self-Sufficiency Standard Calculator,” Indiana Institute for Working Families, http://www.indianaselfsufficiencystandard.org/calculator 14 Counties in the comparison group may be missing from individuals graphs if the county does not staff that particular position or if salary information was not publicly available.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 38 –
Starting salaries, by position KPMG began by identifying the entry-level salaries for sheriff’s deputies and detention deputies in each county, using publicly available position descriptions. As shown in the figures below, the MCSO starting salary lagged behind the starting salary average across the peer group agencies.
Peer agency average: Position MCSO starting salary Starting salary Sheriff’s Deputy $35,123 $46,437 Detention Deputy $32,000 $35,640
Deputy starting salary, by county $60,000 $51,779 $50,417 $49,500 $48,995 $48,900 $48,400 $48,135 $50,000 $46,720 $37,283 $40,000 $35,123 $34,236 $30,000
$20,000 Starting Starting Salary $10,000 $-
County
Detention deputy starting salary, by county
$45,000 $40,170 $39,894 $37,939 $40,000 $37,794 $37,718 $36,140 $36,000 $33,371 $35,000 $32,000 $30,799 $30,000 $26,580 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000
Starting Starting Salary $10,000 $5,000 $-
County
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 39 –
Annual take-home pay, by position To build upon this analysis, KPMG utilized the publicly available Employee Compensation Report published through the Indiana Gateway for Government Units. These figures allowed KPMG to calculate the mean total take-home pay by position, which includes salary and overtime pay from 2017. KPMG has removed notable outliers from the analysis.
For each of the five assessed positions, the mean salary paid by Marion County was less than the peer agency average (defined as the average of the mean salaries of the full comparison cohort). Salaries for detention deputies were closest to the market average. Salaries for sergeants and 911 dispatchers were farthest from the average, $10,000 and $6,000 less, respectively.
Position MCSO average: Take-home Peer agency average: pay Take-home pay Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $52,913 Detention Deputy $39,449 $40,738 Sergeant $50,631 $61,956 Court Security $33,742 $37,380 911 Dispatcher $36,929 $43,105
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 40 –
Sheriff’s deputy take-home pay The mean MCSO deputy take-home pay, which includes both salary and overtime pay, is in line with that of deputies in nearby Morgan and Hancock counties, who earned annual averages of $48,200 and $50,500, respectively. However, MCSO’s deputies earn significantly less than deputies employed by other large counties in Indiana. In particular, the mean take-home pay of a deputy in adjacent Hamilton County, which consistently ranked near the top in employee compensation, is more than $10,000 above the mean pay earned by an MCSO deputy. Deputies in Lake County earn approximately $9,000 more on average than deputies in Marion County.
Mean take-home pay, deputy – nearby counties $70,000 $62,290 $60,000 $53,439 $52,554 $50,631 $50,503 $48,295 $50,000 $46,698 $46,731
$40,000
Home Home Pay - $30,000
$20,000 Mean Mean Take $10,000
$0 Hamilton Shelby Johnson Marion Hancock Morgon Hendricks Boone County County County County County County County County County
Mean take-home pay, deputy – large counties $70,000.00 $62,290 $59,261 $60,000.00 $55,315 $51,780 $50,631 $48,096 $50,000.00
$40,000.00
Home Home Pay - $30,000.00
$20,000.00 Mean Mean Take $10,000.00
$0.00 Hamilton Lake County Allen County EIkhart County Marion County St. Joseph County County County
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 41 –
Detention deputy take-home pay Detention deputies in Marion County fell in the median compensation range when compared to nearby counties. However, detention deputies in all five large Indiana counties earned more than their peers in Marion County, from an average annual take-home pay of $37,649 in Elkhart County up to an average of $48,638 in Allen County.
Mean take-home pay, detention deputy – nearby counties $50,000 $44,203 $43,937 $39,449 $45,000 $38,639 $37,431 $40,000 $34,599 $30,056 $35,000
$30,000 Home Home Pay - $25,000 $20,000 $15,000
$10,000 Mean Mean Take $5,000 $0 Hancock Hamilton Marion Morgan Shelby Johnson Boone County County County County County County County County
Sergeant take-home pay Salary data for sergeants was not available for the nearby county cohort. Data from large county cohort suggests that sergeants in Marion County earn significantly less than their peers in St. Joseph, Allen, Lake, and Elkhart counties.
Mean salary, sergeant – large counties $80,000 $69,483 $67,946 $65,041 $70,000 $61,237 $60,000 $50,708
$50,000 Home Home Pay - $40,000 $30,000 $20,000
Mean Mean Take $10,000 $0 Elkhart County Lake County Allen County St. Joseph Marion County County County
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 42 –
Sergeants in Marion County earned on average $16,800, or approximately 25 percent, less than their peers in the large county cohort. This disparity, however, was magnified at the low end of the pay scale. Sergeants in the 25th percentile of the pay scale in Marion County earned $19,300, or approximately 32 percent, less than their peers in the 25th percentile in the comparison group. Sergeants in the 75th percentile of pay in Marion County earned take-home pay closer to that of their peers, but still lagged behind by approximately $12,000 or 17 percent.
Take-home pay quartiles: large Marion County Large county average Difference counties 25th Percentile: $ 41,730 $ 61,042 $ 19,312 50th Percentile: $ 48,840 $ 65,679 $ 16,838 75th Percentile: $ 57,401 $ 69,427 $ 12,026
Additionally, the mean take-home pay for a sergeant in Marion County is similar to the mean take-home pay for a deputy in Marion County, once overtime is taken into account—a statistic that was echoed in KPMG’s interviews with MCSO staff. MCSO employees reported that this pay scale created a disincentive for deputies to progress in their career within MCSO. Employees noted that there is a reluctance to pursue promotions that require additional responsibilities for a negligible pay increase, and employees could not see the benefit of a long-term career within MCSO due to limited opportunities for financial progression. Rather, employees reported that MCSO provided a short-term opportunity to gain experience and build a résumé that would allow them to progress their careers within other sheriff offices that offer better financial benefits and career progression.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 43 –
Court security take-home pay Average annual take-home pay for court security officers ranged from $28,000 to $40,000 in both the large county and nearby county cohorts. Marion County court security officers averaged annual take-home pay of $33,741.
Mean take-home pay, court security – large counties $45,000
$40,000 $40,690 $35,000 $38,374 $33,742 $30,000 $32,481
$25,000 $28,572
Home Home Pay - $20,000
$15,000
Mean Mean Take $10,000
$5,000
$0 Allen County Hamilton County Marion County Lake County St. Joseph County County
Mean take-home pay, court security – nearby counties $50,000 $45,000 $46,649 $40,000 $42,162 $40,459 $35,000 $39,286 $38,517 $38,374 $30,000 $33,742 $32,805 $25,000
$20,000
Home Home Pay - $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 Mean Mean Take $0 Boone Hendricks Shelby Hancock Morgan Hamilton Marion Johnson County County County County County County County County County
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 44 –
911 Dispatcher take-home pay Dispatchers in Marion County earned significantly less than dispatchers in the nearby county and large county cohorts. While dispatchers received a salary increase in 2017, even after this increase, KPMG’s analysis found dispatchers can gain average pay raises of $2,500 to $10,000 by leaving Marion County for a similar position in an adjacent county and $10,000 to $14,000 more by relocating for a similar position in Lake County or Hamilton County, which offer average annual pay of $50,195 and $46,847, respectively.
Mean take-home pay, dispatcher – nearby counties
$46,848 $46,074 $42,140 $39,487
$36,929 Mean Mean Take Home Pay
Hamilton County Hancock County Johnson County Margon County Marion County County
Take-home pay quartiles: large Marion County Large county average Difference counties 25th Percentile: $ 33,118 $ 41,144 $ 8,026 50th Percentile: $ 36,411 $ 45,765 $ 9,354 75th Percentile: $ 39,674 $ 49,721 $ 10,047
Conclusion In focus groups and interviews, staff across MCSO reported that the office’s challenges with recruiting and retention stem from a salary scale that is not in line with the market average. KPMG’s analysis supports this observation. As MCSO is one of the largest, and therefore busiest, sheriff’s offices in Indiana, this means that MCSO staff can gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities by transferring to neighboring sheriff’s offices.
To maximize effectiveness, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and HR policies that drive effective performance and employee assessment. Bringing salaries in line with the market average in the Indiana market is a smart first step with the potential to help fill vacancies, retain high quality employees, and improve morale across MCSO divisions. These salary modifications may require the support of the County-Council and Mayor.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 45 –
MCSO peer group analysis, division-wide operations
Benchmarking peer group based on services performed KPMG identified a potential national peer group of 13 Sheriff’s Offices based on similar county size, location, and household income. The team then researched the mandates of each office: the agencies in the comparison county/city-county cohort provide a range of services based on the mandates and conventions of their jurisdiction. The table below illustrates the responsibilities of each office as compared to those of MCSO. This comparison was used throughout the analysis to guide and inform the appropriate benchmark criteria (i.e., funding, staffing, and services) between MCSO and the peer agency cohort.
Services performed, MCSO compared to peer group agencies
Sex offender Court Agency Corrections Patrol Warrants registry security
Marion County, IN, Sheriff’s Office
Davidson County, TN, Sheriff's Office
Denver County, CO, Sheriff Office
Duval County, FL, Sheriff's Office East Baton Rouge, LA, Sheriff’s Office
Fayette County, KY, Sheriff’s Office
Franklin County, OH, Sheriff’s Office
Hamilton County, OH, Sheriff’s Office
Jefferson County, KY, Sheriff’s Office
Lake County, IN, Sheriff's Office Philadelphia County, PA, Sheriff’s Office
Richmond County, GA, Sheriff's Office
Suffolk County, MA, Sheriff’s Office
Virginia Beach, VA, Sheriff’s Office Summary 11 of 13 7 of 13 13 of 13 7 of 13 10 of 13
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 46 –
Sheriff office funding per resident To allow for a comparison of sheriff’s office funding across counties with differing populations, KPMG calculated the sheriff office funding per resident in each county, as shown in the figure below.
Sheriff office funding per resident
$500 $436 $450 $400 $350 $300 $233 $250 $198 $200 $140 $136 $129 $150 $112 $102 $100 $72
$50 $17 Funding Funding Resident per $0
County
Hamilton County, Ohio and Jacksonville Florida Sheriff’s offices top the list; it is unsurprising that these offices have high funding per resident given that both offices provide both patrol and corrections services. Philadelphia’s Sheriff’s Office does not operate either patrol or jail divisions, and as a result, ranks lowest in funding per resident. Of note, Franklin County, Ohio operates both jail and patrol divisions at a funding per resident lower than that of MCSO.
Of the counties that provide jail services and do not provide patrol services, the Suffolk County, Davidson County, and Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Offices are allocated funding between $100 and $135 per resident; and the Denver County Sheriff tops the list of nonpatrol agencies with $198 in per resident. The average of funding per resident of the comparison agencies that provide jail but not patrol services was $141. MCSO funding is in line with this average at $140 per resident.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 47 –
Sheriff office funding as a share of the total county budget
Sheriff office funding as a share of the county budget 12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2% Share of County Share County of Budget
0% Denver County Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff Marion County Sheriff Sheriff's Office
MCSO’s share of the City-County budget is slightly above the share received by two comparison offices, the Denver County Sheriff’s Office and Franklin County Sheriff’s Office. It is worth noting that the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office has a patrol function, so it is providing a wider range of services with a lower share of the total county budget. The Denver County Sheriff offers most of the services provided by MCSO, with the exception of monitoring registered SOVO offenders, at a lower share of the county budget than MCSO.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 48 –
Sheriff office budget per staff Compared to the peer offices for which budget and staffing numbers were publicly available, MCSO had the highest budget per staff member. This is notable given that MCSO salaries are below those paid by most peer offices.
Sheriff office budget per staff $160,000 $148,272
$140,000 $131,952 $127,997 $122,843 $120,248 $120,000 $104,391 $100,000 $89,478
$80,000
$60,000 Budget Budget Staff per $40,000
$20,000
$0 Marion Jacksonville Denver Suffolk Franklin Virginia Hamilton County Sheriff's Sheriff County County Beach County Sheriff Office Department Sheriff's Sheriff's Sheriff's Sheriff's Office Department Office Office Office Sheriff's office
In some cases, this differential may stem from the fact that MCSO is operating with fewer staff than the comparison agency, as illustrated in the figure below. However, it is worth noting that MCSO’s budget per staff is higher than that of comparatively sized agencies such as Suffolk County, MA and Hamilton County, OH. This may result from utilizing overtime to fill vacancies or a greater proportion of high cost supervisory staff as compared to peer agency.
Peer agencies by number of staff
3500 3096 3000 2500 2000
1500 1201 1090 897 883 1000 842
Number Number Staff of 439 500 0 Jacksonville Franklin Denver Marion Suffolk Hamilton Virginia Sheriff's County Sheriff County County County Beach Office Sheriff’s Department Sheriff Sheriff’s Sheriff’s Sheriff’s Office Office Department Office Office Sheriff's Office
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 49 –
Residents per sheriff employee Across their peer group, the City-County ranked second to the top in residents per sheriff’s office employees, at approximately 1,000 residents per employee. It is important to note that the Hamilton County and Jacksonville Sheriff’s Offices operate both corrections and patrol divisions. As a result, they employ more employees per resident than MCSO and the sheriff’s offices in Franklin County, Virginia Beach, Suffolk County, and Denver.
Residents per sheriff employee 1200 1100 1070 1050 1000 900
800 700
600 500 400 400
200 Residents Residents Employee per 0 Franklin Marion Virginia Suffolk Denver Hamilton Jacksonville County County Beach County Sheriff County Sheriff's Sheriff's Sheriff Sheriff's Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Office Office Office Office Department Office Sheriff's Office
Conclusion As compared to the peer group, MCSO has a small number of employees for the size of its population: the office was near the top of the group in the number of residents per sheriff office employee. However, MCSO spends more per employee than the other agencies in the peer group, a fact that may stem from higher levels of overtime or higher levels of high cost supervisory employees. With high spending per employee but a low number of employees per resident, MCSO ranked near the average in sheriff’s office spending per resident, when compared to other agencies that provide jail but not patrol services.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 50 –
Jail Division
Jail Division
The Marion County Sheriff operates three correctional facilities—Jail I, Jail II, and Hope Hall—with a total bed capacity of approximately 2,500 inmates. The Jail Division also operates an intake facility in the basement of the City-County Building. The Jail Division receives approximately half of MCSO’s funding each year. The Division’s key responsibilities include jail operations and security, arrestee transport and intake processing, and arrestee and inmate medical security. Within the Jail Division, KPMG has conducted additional reviews focused on arrestee transportation and inmate medical security, as detailed on pages 60-72 and 72-76 respectively. Overview From 2015 to 2017, MCSO’s annual expenditures on jail operations fell by approximately $11 million or 17 percent. However expenditures are at times “rolled over” to the following year; as a result, an expenditure coded as 2017 in the General Ledger may actually stem from a 2016 expense. With adjustments to re-categorize “rollover” expenses, the decline in Jail Division expenditures shrinks: adjusted Jail Division expenditures have fallen by 11 percent, or approximately $6.5 million from 2015 to 2017. The Jail Division accounts for a rising share—and a majority—of MCSO’s overtime expenditures. The Jail Division was responsible for 68 percent of MCSO total overtime costs in 2015; 80 percent in 2016, and 74 percent in 2018. Annual expenditures on Jail Division overtime increased by more than 100 percent from $1.5 million in 2015 to $3.6 million in 2017. MCSO’s average daily expenditures per inmate, at $66, ranked third lowest out of the eight agencies in the national peer agency comparison for which data was publicly available; MCSO’s ratio of inmates to staff, at 5.7 inmates per sheriff’s office employee, was the highest. Rising levels of overtime appear to result from concurrent increases in demand and reductions in staffing. From 2015–2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and the average daily jail population increased from an average of 86 percent of total daily jail capacity in 2015 to 101 percent of total capacity in 2017. During this same period, total staffing in the Jail Division decreased by 11 percent, from 496 staff in 2015 to 442 in 2017. Jail Division staffing has declined sharply in fiscal year 2018 to date, falling 13 percent from 442 to 386 staff, a reduction of 56 employees. With 386 staff as of August 2018, Jail Division staffing stands 17 percent below its 2015 level. KPMG compared MCSO’s jail division overtime to publicly available overtime information for Allen County and St. Joseph County, two large Indiana counties with sizes most comparable to the City- County. MCSO’s overtime expenditures per jail bed were approximately $1,350, twice those of both St. Joseph County and Allen County. Increased demand for jail bookings and jail beds likely stems both from an uptick in arrests and bookings in the City-County as well as the effects of statewide House Enrolled Act 1006. The number of arrests in the City-County grew by 9 percent from 33,000 to 35,000 from 2015–2017, while the number of bookings grew by 11 percent from 47,000 to 52,000. Passed in 2015, House Enrolled Act 1006 dictated that individuals convicted of certain low-level felonies would serve their sentences at the county jail level, rather than in state prisons. The number of HB 1006 inmates in MCSO facilities has grown over time. In 2016, MCSO housed an average of 140 HB 1006 inmates
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 52 –
per day; in 2017, this number grew to an average of 250 per day, and as of June 2018, MCSO was housing an average of 334 HB 1006 inmates per day. The jail is moving to a Detention Deputy model. Deputies, a higher cost position, accounted for 81 percent of Jail Division staff in 2014; this share has fallen to 55 percent in 2018 as MCSO has shifted duties to lower-cost detention deputies and civilian staff. Reductions in staffing reflect high levels of attrition across MCSO. In particular, attrition rates for detention deputies stand at approximately 43–44 percent per year, nearly twice MCSO’s average attrition rate across positions. A portion of this attrition may be attributable to detention deputies transferring internally within the Office to become deputies.
Year Adopted Expenditures Share of Overtime budget (inc. overtime) MCSO budget Staffing* expenditures 2015 $62.1 million $65.6 million 55% 496 $1.5 million 2016 $61.0 million $50.4 million 44% 449 $3.4 million 2017 $70.5 million $54.3 million 46% 442 $3.6 million 2018 (through $60.3 million $25.9 million 40% 386 $1.6 million June)
*Staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
KPMG identified a number of potential opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness within the Jail Division, focusing in particular on the organization’s arrestee transportation and inmate medical security functions, as outlined on pages 70-72 and 75-76 respectively. Budget trends, Jail Division MCSO’s annual expenditures on jail operations have fallen by approximately $11 million, or 17 percent, since 2015. MCSO spent approximately $50-$55 million per year on jail operations in 2016 and 2017 and appears on track to spend a similar amount in 2018 based on year to date expenditures. The Jail Division remains the largest component of the MCSO budget; however, related expenditures have fallen from 55 percent of the total budget in 2015 to 40 percent in 2018.
Expenditures are at times “rolled over” to the following year; as a result, an expenditures coded as 2017 in the General Ledger may actually stem from a 2016 expense. KPMG compared annual Jail Division expenditures as recorded in the General Ledger to amended expenditures intended to correctly categorize these “rollover” expenses. This analysis suggests that MCSO’s 2015 expenditures were inflated by a $5.5 million “rollover” payment from 2014. “Rollover” expenditures in 2016-2018 ranged from $300,000 to $2.4 million.
Expenditures from “Rollover” Expenditures from Adjusted Year General Ledger the Previous Year Expenditures 2015 $65.6 million $5.6 million $62.4 million 2016 $50.4 million $2.4 million $48.3 million 2017 $54.3 million $0.3 million $55.8 million 2018 (through June) $25.9 million $1.8 million $25.9 million
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 53 –
With adjustments to re-categorize these “rollover” expenses, the magnitude of the decline in Jail Division expenditures becomes less—that is, expenditures have fallen by 11%, or approximately $6.5 million from 2015 to 2017.
Peer Group Comparison; average daily budget per inmate: To allow for comparisons across peer agencies, KPMG calculated the average daily cost per inmate by Sheriff’s Office. To inform this calculation the office’s total correction’s budget was divided by the average daily population and converted into a daily cost. Compared to national peer agencies for which this information was available, MCSO ranked second lowest in average daily budget per inmate, at $66 per day.
Daily budget per inmate
Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office $62
Marion County Sheriff Office $66
Jefferson County Department of Corrections $71
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office $82
Lake County Sheriff's Department $88 Sheriff's Sheriff's Office Denver Sheriff Department $114
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office $123
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Daily budget per inmate
Staffing, Jail Division Jail Division staffing against overtime $4,000,000 600 Total staffing in the Jail Division increased $3,500,000 500 temporarily in 2015 with $3,000,000 the creation of the 400 detention deputy $2,500,000 position. Division staffing fell by 11 percent from $2,000,000 300 2015 to 2017, from 496 $1,500,000 200
to 442 deputies. Numberofstaff $1,000,000
Overtime Overtime expenditures 100 This decline in staffing $500,000 increased in 2018. The Jail Division staffing $- 0 declined from 442 to 386 2015 2016 2017 throughout 2018, a Year reduction of 56 employees or 13 percent. Staffing Overtime With 386 staff as of August 2018, Jail Division staffing stands 17 percent below its 2015 level.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 54 –
MCSO is shifting to a lower-cost detention deputy model for staffing its Jail Division, as is in line with leading practice. The jail’s force mix (split between deputies, detention deputies, and civilian staff) has changed significantly since 2015. Deputies, a higher cost position, accounted for 81 percent of Jail Division staff in 2014; this share has fallen to 55 percent in 2018. The detention deputy position was introduced in 2015, and detention deputies constitute 13 percent of the Jail Division workforce as of 2018. Meanwhile, civilian positions have grown from 19 percent to 32 percent of the Jail Division workforce. As of 2018, excluding civilians—who cannot have inmate contact—the Jail Division is 80 percent deputies and 20 percent detention deputies. MCSO is working to reversing this ratio in the coming years.
Force mix: Jail Division, 2015-2018
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%
Share of Total Share Total of Employees 10% 0% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year % Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
Peer group comparison: ratio of inmates to jail staff: Based on KPMG’s analysis of average daily population and jail staffing, MCSO had the highest ratio of inmates to jail staff, based on the Division’s 2017 staffing level. This reflects both the size of MCSO’s jail population, which is the largest of the counties listed below, as well as MCSO’s difficulties recruiting qualified staff to fill vacancies. This
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 55 –
analysis does not take into account the security classification of the respective jail populations, which may contribute to differing levels of supervision.
Inmates: Staff ratio 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2
Member 1 0 Marion County Jefferson Lake County Hamilton Franklin County Jacksonville
Number Number Inmate of 1 per Staff Sheriff Office, County Sheriff's County Sheriff’s Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff's Office, IN Department of Department, IN Office, OH OH FL Corrections, TN Sheriff's Office
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 56 –
Overtime, Jail Division The Jail Division’s overtime expenditures doubled from 2015 to 2016 to approximately $3.4 million even as the division’s staffing levels increased by 6 percent. Overtime expenditures within the Jail Division have remained at this elevated level since and appear on track to surpass $3 million in 2018 based on year to date expenditures.
The increase in overtime expenditures from 2015 to 2016 occurred at the same time as an increase in demand, as shown in the graphic below. From 2015 to 2016, bookings grew by 12 percent and MCSO’s average daily jail population increased from 86 percent of capacity to 97 percent of capacity. The figure below shows the increase in overtime expenditures during this period as well as the increasing average inmate count by month. Inmate counts and overtime expenditures are shown on a monthly basis from January 2015 to December 2017. It is worth noting that variability in overtime expenditures has increased over time, suggesting that MCSO is no longer able to plan, control, or optimize its overtime usage.
Overtime expenditure versus average inmate count $200,000 3,000 $180,000 $160,000 2,500 $140,000 2,000 $120,000 $100,000 1,500 $80,000 1,000
Overtime Overtime ($) $60,000 Inmate Inmate Count $40,000 500 $20,000
$- -
8/2/2015 7/2/2016 9/2/2016 6/2/2017 1/2/2015 2/2/2015 3/2/2015 4/2/2015 5/2/2015 6/2/2015 7/2/2015 9/2/2015 1/2/2016 2/2/2016 3/2/2016 4/2/2016 5/2/2016 6/2/2016 8/2/2016 1/2/2017 2/2/2017 3/2/2017 4/2/2017 5/2/2017 7/2/2017 8/2/2017 9/2/2017
10/2/2015 11/2/2015 12/2/2015 10/2/2016 11/2/2016 12/2/2016 10/2/2017 11/2/2017 12/2/2017 Date Overtime--Sum Average Inmate Count
Both demand and overtime expenditures have remained constant at their elevated levels between 2016 and 2017. Bookings declined just 1 percent from 2016 to 2017; the jail population increased from 97 percent to 101 percent of capacity, and overtime expenditures grew by 6 percent. This increase in overtime may have resulted both from the increase in jail capacity as well as the 9 percent decline in staffing that occurred from 2016–2017. The increase in average daily jail population may result from an increase in the number of House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1006 inmates in the MCSO jail, which grew from an average of 140 per day in 2016 to an average of 250 per day in 2017.
Peer group comparison; jail operations overtime: KPMG compared MCSO’s jail operations overtime to publicly available overtime information for Allen County and St. Joseph County, one drawn from the large county comparison group and the other drawn from the nearby county comparison group.
Salary quartiles: large counties Marion county St. Joseph county Allen county Estimated Daily Jail Population 2425 636 711 Bed Capacity 2507 830 741 Number of Dedicated Jail Staff 446 156 144
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 57 –
To account for the differing size of the county facilities, KPMG calculated three metrics, as shown in the chart below: overtime spend per inmate, overtime spend per jail bed, and overtime spend per jail employee. With these controls in place, the City-County spends significantly more on overtime per inmate, per jail bed, and per employee than the two comparative counties.
Salary quartiles: large counties Marion County St. Joseph County Allen County OT Expenditures by inmate (ADP) $1,400 $964 $748 OT Expenditures by Jail Bed $1,360 $739 $718 OT Expenditures by Jail Employee $7,630 $3,930 $3,693
As shown in the figure below, MCSO’s overtime expenditures per inmate were $1,400, 40 percent above those of St. Joseph County and 80 percent above those of Allen County. MCSO’s overtime expenditures per jail bed were $1,360, approximately twice those of both St. Joseph County and Allen County.
Jail overtime per inmate and per bed, county comparison $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400
Overtime Overtime Expenditure $200 $- Marion County St. Joseph County Allen County Sheriff's Office
Overtime per inmate Overtime per jail bed
Demand, Jail Division MCSO’s average daily population jumped sharply from an average of 2,165 inmates in 2015 to an average of 2,425 in 2016. With this increase, MCSO’s jail population grew from 86 percent of capacity in 2015 to 97 percent of capacity in 2016. MCSO’s jail population has remained at or above 97 percent capacity since 2016, holding at levels MCSO terms “crisis mode.” These capacity challenges impose a strain on MCSO’s staff and facilities. MCSO leadership believe that increased demand and reduce staffing increases MCSO’s liability and risk of accidents, as well as employee burnout.
This increase likely stems in part from higher numbers of arrests, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to 2017, bookings into jail increased by 11 percent from 2015 to 2017, as well as the impacts of House Enrolled Act 1006, which requires individuals convicted of low-level felonies to serve their sentences in county jails or community corrections programs. The graphics below show MCSO’s average daily
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 58 –
population and jail capacity from 2015 to 2018, as well as the percent increases in the number of arrests, bookings, and jail inmates in the City-County.
Average daily population and jail Rising jail demand, 2015-2017 utilization 16% 3000 120% 14% 2500 100% 12% 2000 80% 10% 1500 60% 8% 1000 40% 6%
500 20% Utilization Jail 0 0% 4% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2% Year 0% Average Average Daily Population % increase, % increase, % increase, Average number of inmates daily arrests bookings average daily jail Jail utilization population
The number of HEA 1006 inmates in MCSO jails has grown since 2016. In 2016, MCSO housed an average of 140 HEA 1006 inmates per day; in 2017, this number grew to an average of 250 per day, and as of June 2018, MCSO was housing an average of 334 HEA 1006 inmates per day. This trend is detailed in the figure below, which shows the daily count of HEA 1006 inmates from January 2016 to July 2018. It is important to note that the state reimburses MCSO $35 per day for each HEA 1006 inmate housed. However, the cost of a jail bed in MCSO is $75 per day, so MCSO is responsible for the $40 differential. Based on increases in the average number of HEA 1006 in MCSO jails, the project team estimates that MCSO’s expenses related to HEA 1006 inmates have grown from $200,000 in 2016 to $490,000 in 2018, assuming the current average daily HEA 1006 population remains steady through the end of the year.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 59 –
National peer agency benchmarking research shows that MCSO is not alone in its jail capacity challenges: 4 counties in the comparative peer group had average jail populations above 100 percent of capacity, and 6 of the 7 comparison counties for which information was publicly available had populations above 90 percent of their total capacity.
Jail utilization across counties
Lake County, IN 59% Davidson County, TN 62% Suffolk County, MA 66% Jacksonville-Duval County, FL 74% Franklin County, OH 79% Denver, CO 93%
Virginia Beach, VA 95% County Marion County, IN 101% East Baton Rouge, LA 101% Richmond County, GA 103% Hamilton County , OH 104% Jefferson County, TN 104%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Jail Utilization
MCSO may benefit from an assessment of opportunities to reduce bed demand while preserving or enhancing Average length of stay public safety. Other jurisdictions have used jail utilization 4% 5% studies to identify subsets of their jail population that may benefit from alternative housing or community-based programming, as well as the highest utilizers of criminal justice services, who may benefit from targeted 30% solutions. 61% Evidence suggests that a significant number of MCSO inmates are held for low-level charges. For example, 61 percent of MCSO inmates have an average length of stay between one to five days. Additionally, many of the most common arrest charges booked into an MCSO 1 to 5 days 5 to 50 days facility are low level, including driving while suspended, 51 to 100 days public intoxication, and possession of paraphernalia.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 60 –
Top 10 arrest charges 2015 2016 2017 2018
Possession of Paraphernalia Battery Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Public Intoxication Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury
Possession of Marijuana Charge Resisting Law Enforcement Domestic Battery Driving While Suspended Theft
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Number of charges Arrestee transportation costs
Overview and summary of findings The Jail Division’s Arrestee Transportation section transports arrestees by wagon from the custody of the arresting officer (typically at the site of their arrest) to Intake. MCSO wagons transported 88 percent of all arrestees in 2015 and 2016; this number grew to 89 percent in 2017–2018. Arrestees not picked up by an MCSO wagon are typically transported by the arresting officer. Overtime dedicated to arrestee transportation increased by 200 percent from $94,000 in 2015 to $281,000 in 2017. Arrestee transportation has consumed an increasing share of MCSO’s total overtime costs, up from 4 percent in 2015 to 6 percent in 2017. As was the case with the Jail Division as a whole, increasing overtime expenditures in the Arrestee Transportation section result from increasing demand occurring at the same time as reductions in staffing. The number of arrestees transported by MCSO grew by 9 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 33,000 to 35,000 transports per year. In part, this reflects an increase in the total number of arrestees in the City-County, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to 2017. This also reflects the increased demand as MCSO conducted a slightly higher percentage of arrestee transports as compared to the arresting officer, up from 88 percent of all transports in 2015 to 89 percent in 2017. Even as demand rose, the number of deputies assigned to the section declined by 25 percent, from 31 staff in 2015 to 25 staff in 2017. This decline reflects MCSO’s difficulties with recruiting and retention office-wide. Based on the schedule received by KPMG, staffing for the Arrestee Transportation section appears relatively flat across shifts, with seven or eight postings for both the day and night shifts each day of the week. To maximize efficiency given its current resources, MCSO could develop optimized schedules based on historical trends in demand for arrestee transportation.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 61 –
KPMG identified a number of opportunities for demand management and process efficiencies related to arrestee transportation, as outlined on pages 70-72.
Adopted Expenditures Average Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) staffing* expenditures 2015 $1.9 million $2.1 million 31 $94,000 2016 $1.9 million $2.3 million 28 $250,000 2017 $1.8 million $2.2 million 25 $281,000 2018 (through $1.9 million $1 million 23 $145,000 June)
*Yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends, arrestee transportation MCSO’s annual expenditures on arrestee transportation have remained relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017. Expenditures exceeded the adopted budget for arrestee transportation each year from 2015 to 2017, growing from a 12 percent difference in 2015 to a 22 percent difference in 2017.
Staffing trends, arrestee transportation Arrestee transportation staffing has declined by 25 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 31 staff to 25 staff. Staffing for the Arrestee Transportation section appears flat, with seven or eight postings for both the day and night shifts each day of the week. While MCSO tracks the number of deputies assigned to the section, the Jail Division cross-utilizes its staff, meaning drivers may be temporarily reassigned from the Arrestee Transportation section to another jail section based on the jail’s needs that day. This cross- utilization is an efficient tactic to allow MCSO to use its staffing to best meet its demand each day. However, MCSO does not currently track the number of drivers that are actually deployed each day and the number of transportation staff that are cross-utilized. KPMG recommends that MCSO begin tracking the number of wagons actually deployed each shift in order to allow for an analysis of trends in demand for transport by time of day, by shift, and by day of the week.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 62 –
Overtime trends, arrestee transportation Overtime dedicated to arrestee transport increased Staffing compared to overtime expenditures by 200 percent between 2015 $300,000 35 and 2017, from $94,000 in 30 2015 to $281,000 in 2017. $250,000 25 $200,000 The majority of this increase 20 occurred between 2015 and $150,000 2016: overtime grew by 15 $100,000 Staffing 67 percent as staffing 10 declined 10 percent and the $50,000 5 number of transports Overtime expenditures increased 12 percent. $- 0 Overtime increased again 2015 2016 2017 from 2016 to 2017 by $31,000 Year or 12 percent, as the section’s staffing declined by another Staffing Arrestee transportation overtime 10 percent as the number of transports held constant.
Arrestee transportation has consumed an increasing share of MCSO’s total overtime costs, up from 4 percent in 2015 to 6 percent in 2017.
Demand trends, arrestee transportation The number of arrestees transported by MCSO, as Total arrestees compared to average expenditure opposed to the arresting per arrestee agency, grew by 9 percent 40,000 $80 from 29,000 in 2015 to 31,000 35,000 $70 in 2017. This reflects a slight increase in the share of 30,000 $60 arrestees transported by 25,000 $50 MCSO: in 2015–2016, 88 20,000 $40 percent of arrestees were 15,000 $30 transported by MCSO; this number grew to 89 percent in 10,000 $20
2017–2018. Arrestees not Number Arrestees of 5,000 $10 transported by MCSO are 0 $- typically transported by the 2015 2016 2017 arresting agency. The increase
Year Average Expenditure Arrestee per in demand also reflects an increase in the total number of arrests in the City-County, Arrestees Expenditure per arrestee which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 33,000 to 35,000.
For arrestees transported by MCSO, as the volume of arrestees has increased while expenditures have remained stable, the expenditure per arrestee has fallen from $74.02 in 2015 to $70.81 in 2017.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 63 –
There are temporal trends in arrests in the City-County, as illustrated in the figures below. As discussed in the opportunities section of this section of the report, MCSO can maximize productivity by aligning staffing to these trends in demand.
Average number of arrests by hour of day, 2015-2017 7
6
5
4
3
2 Number Number Arrests of 1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of the Day
Average number of arrests by month, 2015-2017 3200 3100 3000 2900 2800 2700
2600 Number Number Arrests of 2500 2400 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 64 –
CAD wagon data analysis The project team analyzed a data set of Computer Aided Dispatch data provided by MCSO that included arrestee transportation calls for service from 2015, 2016, 2017, and January 1 through October 1, 2018. Call Distribution by Requesting Agency The number of wagon calls for services responded to by Calls per year, by agency MCSO grew by 6 percent from 40000 2015 to 2017, from 36,293 in 38000 2015 to 38,527 in 2017. As of 36000 October 1, 2018, MCSO had 34000 responded to 27,298 calls, 32000 putting the office on track to 30000 for an annual call volume in Number Calls of 28000 2018 in line with its 2015 level. 2015 2016 2017 Approximately 90-92% of Year MCSO calls for transport each All Other Agency or Uncategorized year come from IMPD. Speedway Police Department Approximately 3% of MCSO Beech Grove Police Department calls each year are received from the City of Lawrence City of Lawrence Police Department Police Department; 2-3% of IMPD calls come from the Beech Grove Police Department, and 1-2% of calls per year are Share of arrests/calls for transport by agency, 2015- received from the Speedway 2018 Police Department. The remaining 1-2% of calls each 2%2% 2% 3% year are either uncategorized in IMPD the data or come from an out of county law enforcement City of Lawrence Police agency, such as a police Department department outside of Marion Beech Grove Police County or the Indiana State Department Police. 91% Speedway Police Department
Number of calls for transport by year and requesting agency
Requesting agency 2015 2016 2017 2018 IMPD 32,943 35,912 35,341 24,630 City of Lawrence Police Department 1,098 1,300 1,103 7,88 Beech Grove Police Department 786 711 823 722 Speedway Police Department 746 659 559 419 All other agency or uncategorized 720 673 746 739
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 65 –
Call Distribution by Zip Code
Calls for arrestee transport are not distributed evenly throughout Marion County and its surroundings. In the CAD data provided, MCSO had conducted transit runs to 63 zip codes since 2015. Ten of these zip codes account for 62% of calls for transport. Twenty zip codes account for 88% of MCSO’s calls for service. The heat map below illustrates the distribution of calls for service in zip codes in Marion County. The tables at the bottom of the page list each zip code from which MCSO has received a call since 2015 and the share of total calls received from that zip code.
Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls 46201 9% 46202 4% 46237 2% 46203 7% 46226 4% 46216 1% 46218 7% 46224 4% 46250 1% 46222 6% 46208 3% 46268 1% 46219 6% 46225 3% 46214 1% 46204 6% 46205 3% 46217 1% 46241 5% 46221 2% 46220 1% 46227 5% 46229 2% 46260 1% 46254 5% 46235 2% 46240 1%
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 66 –
Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls 46107 1% 46168 0% 46163 0% 46239 1% 46112 0% 46249 0% 46234 1% 46123 0% 46280 0% 46236 1% 46143 0% 46077 0% 46256 1% 46142 0% 46140 0% 46228 0% 46206 0% 46158 0% 46231 0% 46183 0% 46165 0% 46278 0% 46032 0% 46167 0% 46113 0% 47012 0% 46180 0% 46259 0% 46038 0% 46282 0% 46037 0% 46149 0% 46285 0% 46122 0% 46118 0% 46290 0%
Call Distribution by Time of Day
The figure on the Average number of wagons in use and number of calls right shows the served, by hour of day, 2015-2018 average number of wagons deployed 7 by MCSO at each 6 hour of the day, 5 drawing on 4 historical CAD data from 2015 to 2018. 3 The number of 2 wagons deployed 1 by MCSO varies by 0 time of day. While 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
MCSO has an Number Wagons of and Calls average of three Hour of Day wagons on the road at any given Average wagons in use Average number of calls answered time, actual deployment levels can vary between one to seven. As shown in the figure above, the number of calls for transport that MCSO responds to appears to vary based on the availability of wagons. Under MCSO’s current data recording processes, incident data and wagon transport data are not linked within the system. As a result, it is not possible to determine if the correlation shown in the graph above is between actual demand or requested demand. It is possible that
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 67 –
MCSO current staffs more wagons on the road during periods that receive higher call volume. Or it is possible that when MCSO has more wagons on the road, they receive more calls for service. The project team’s analysis of MCSO CAD data evidences that availability of transportation wagons has declined marginally from 2016 to 2018. In 2016, MCSO’s wagon fleet logged an average of 79.8 wagon hours each day. By 2018, this number had fallen to 76.1 wagon hours each day, a decline of approximately 5 percent. Wait times by time of day Across all four years, the project team found that wait times for wagon drivers to respond to calls increased significantly as drivers prepared to end their shift. Wagon drivers work 12 hours shifts from 6am-6pm and 6pm to 6pm. As shown in the graphs below, the project team’s analysis observed spikes in wait times at 5am and 5pm each day. The morning increase in wait times was larger than the afternoon increase. Across all four years, wait times increased by 57% between 4am and 5am before falling again at 6am. In the afternoon, wait times increased by an average of 33% from 4pm to 5pm across all four years before falling again at 6pm. This trend is illustrated in the graphs below. To address this backlog, MCSO should consider modifying staffing at Intake to minimize driver wait time and staggering wagon driver start time, as discussed in the opportunities section below.
Wait times by year and hour of day 40 35 30 25 20
Minutes 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day Shift change Average wait time, 2015 Average wait time, 2016 Average wait time, 2017 Average wait time, 2018
Dispatch times by hour of day Average dispatch time, 2015-2018 The same trend observed in 25 wait times is also present in 20 the dispatch time analysis, with dispatch times increasing 15 sharply in the hour before the 10 shift change. Dispatch times are calculated as the time that 5 elapses from when a call is 0 received to when a driver 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 commences a run. Looking at Dispatch Time (Minutes) Hour of Day averages drawn across all four years of available data,
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 68 –
dispatch times increased by more than 100% from 4am to 5am each morning and by more than 50% from 4pm to 5pm each evening. Longer dispatch times evidences a lack of supply of available drivers. Call Distribution by Month Average number of calls by month, 2015-2017 The number of calls for transport received varies 3,600 throughout the year. During 3,400 3,200 workshops and interviews, 3,000 MCSO staff stated that 2,800 arrestee numbers were 2,600 2,400 higher during the warmer 2,200 months. This appears largely Number Calls of 2,000 borne out by the data, with the number of calls each month beginning to rise in March, remaining elevated Month through the summer, and then declining in the fall.
Wagon Driver Productivity Number of calls per driver per shift Wagon driver productivity 20 has remained constant from 2015-2018, with drivers 15 responding to an average of 10 1.3-1.4 calls per hour and 5
16.4-16.8 calls per 12 hour Driver shift. 0 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number Calls of per Year
Average Call Duration by Hour of Day Call durations remain largely Average call duration, 2015-2018 constant throughout the day with the exception of an increase after the shift 80 change at 6am. Call 70 durations remain between 60 28 and 33 minutes for most 50 of the day, yet they more than double to an average of 40 30 60-70 minutes at 6am and (Minutes) 7am. This increase in 20 duration may result from 10 wagons staying out longer as Average Call Durations they pick up the backlog of 0 transports that accumulated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 during the shift change. Hour of Day
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 69 –
Comparing calls for transport and arrests by month and hour of day To compare the average number of calls for transport and arrests by month and by hour of day, KPMG’s analysis compared two data sets provided by MCSO: CAD data showing arrestee transport and arrest data showing the number of arrests by month and time of day. The project team’s analysis found a correlation between the number of calls and arrests during a given month or given hour. As shown in the graphs below, months with higher numbers of arrests tended to have higher numbers of calls for wagon service. Similarly, there are clear temporal trends throughout the day in both arrests and calls for transport, with demand falling during the late morning.
Average number of calls and arrests by month, 2015-2017 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500
0 Number of Calls Number Calls of or Arrests Month
Average number of calls Average number of arrests
Average number of calls compared to arrests by hour of day, 2015-2017 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Numer of Calls Numer Calls of Arrests or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day
Average number of calls Average number of arrests, 2015-2017
It is worth noting that there were some discrepancies between the arrest and CAD datasets received. This may be an area for further investigation to determine whether there are contextual reasons for the differences in call and arrest numbers or whether they represent errors in current data collection and recording practices.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 70 –
Opportunities, arrestee transportation KPMG identified a number of demand management strategies and process improvements that may allow for improved productivity if implemented:
Demand management Assess opportunities to utilize citations or issue court summons, rather than arrests, for appropriate low-level offenses. In particular, this effort could focus on the 61 percent of MCSO inmates with an average length of stay of one to five days. Common charge types for arrests in the City- County include driving while suspended, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. Officers may be able to avoid arrest in non-emergency situations for this level of offense.
Assess the potential benefits of implementing an evidence-based prebooking diversion program, such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), that has been shown to improve recidivism outcomes. For example, in Seattle, LEAD was targeted toward individuals suspected of low-level drug offenses or prostitution. LEAD participants had 50–60 percent lower odds of being rearrested and 30– 40 percent lower odds of being charged with a felony subsequent to program involvement when compared to a control group.15 An officer-assisted diversion program could reduce demand for arrestee transport for the 80 percent of arrestees who are brought in by agencies other than MCSO. Additionally, reducing recidivism related to low-level offenses could yield benefits to the City-County as a whole and reduce jail costs.
Assess the potential impact of implementing a jail access fee–a fee paid by the arresting agency to MCSO to fund services related to booking. Jail access fees are implemented by a number of counties in California. Eighty percent of arrests in the City-County are conducted by an agency other than MCSO. A jail access fee would provide an incentive for officers to avoid unnecessary arrests while providing a source of revenue to cover expenses relating to intake and holding. For example, MCSO staff members report seeing an increase in arrests whenever there is a new class of graduates from an academy. Implementing a jail access fee may help to create a behavioral change by creating an additional incentive to ensure arrests are only exercised when necessary to protect public safety and when alternative measures will not suffice. It is possible that this policy shift would require approval or cooperation at the state level.
Assess whether MCSO should continue to transport arrestees with medical needs to the hospital. Currently, if an arrestee is determined to have a nonemergency medical need, they are transported to the hospital by MCSO wagon, rather than taken to Intake. These individuals, however, have not yet been booked into the jail and will require medical clearance before being taken to Intake. Should the arresting agency retain responsibility for transporting arrestees that require medical attention to the hospital, MCSO would see a reduction in demand for arrestee transport, as well as a potential decrease in staffing requirements at the hospital and a reduction in medical expenditures. The impact of this recommendation on hospital protective services is discussed on pages 75-76 of this report.
Process improvement Transition to a demand-based staffing model. Based on the schedule received by KPMG, staffing for the Arrestee Transportation section appears relatively flat, with seven or eight postings for both the day and night shifts each day of the week. To maximize efficiency given its current resources, MCSO could
15 “LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report,” Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab, University of Washington, http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7- 15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4percent3D
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 71 –
develop optimized schedules based on historical trends in demand for arrestee transportation. These schedules would optimize the number of deputies scheduled for each shift based on the representative level of demand forecasted using typically historical call for service data. As a first step to creating this analysis, MCSO would be required to begin accurately tracking data on the number of wagons deployed on each shift, including when resources are reassigned to another section of the jail division. Currently, the division tracks the number of wagons scheduled, yet drivers may be pulled off of arrestee transportation to support at intake or with other responsibilities. If implemented, this expanded data collection will allow MCSO to identify trends in demand for transport by time of day, by shift, and by day of the week. Based on these trends, advanced analytics could be applied to identify the most efficient schedules and shift patterns, taking into account MCSO policies and labor restrictions. The creation of an optimized, demand-based schedule has been shown to boost productivity in other jurisdictions.
Modify intake staffing to allow wagon drivers to drop off arrestees and immediately return to their transport responsibilities: Due to infrastructure and staffing constraints, the intake process can create a bottleneck for wagon drivers. When wagons arrive at Intake, drivers wait with the arrestees they transported to provide supervision until the arrestees enter the intake processing area. If Intake is particularly busy, or if multiple wagons arrive simultaneously, multiple drivers may be waiting at the Intake facility for as long as an hour until all of their arrestees have been booked into intake. This leaves a reduced number of wagons available to conduct arrestee transportation. Adjusting staffing or implementing infrastructure modifications to allow wagon drivers to hand off their inmates and immediately return to their transportation duties could boost the section’s productivity.
Stagger wagon driver shift times to allow for consistent wagon availability on the road: The project team’s CAD data analysis found that wait times increased sharply at 5am and 5pm, immediately prior to shift changes for wagon drivers. The team hypothesized that these wait times may arise as most drivers return to Intake in the final hour of their shift to drop off their arrestees at Intake. As discussed above, a backlog at Intake can cause wagon drivers to remain off the road for an extended time. MCSO should consider the potential benefits of staggering shift start times to ensure all wagon drivers do not converge on Intake simultaneously, leaving few to no wagons on the road.
Implement tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign runs to the appropriate wagon driver: MCSO wagon drivers can view all pending requests for arrestee transport through the CAD system in their vehicle. MCSO drivers then flag a particular pickup in the system before going to retrieve the arrestee, in an attempt to ensure that multiple drivers do not travel to retrieve the same individual. During KPMG observations, MCSO drivers appeared to have significant discretion over which arrestees they would choose to pick up, and their decision-making process did not appear to be guided by standard operating procedures. In interviews, drivers expressed that experienced drivers learn to work together over time; however, the current lack of standard operating procedures creates opportunities for errors and inefficiencies. For example, at one point, two wagon drivers simultaneously arrived at the same location to pick up two arrestees who were both located at that location. MCSO could improve efficiency within the Arrestee Transportation section by adopting a tasking and coordination system that assigns wagon drivers to the most efficient routes and pickups. Such a system could also allow for improved performance management by division leadership.
Improve cooperation among MCSO partner agencies: There may be opportunities to improve coordination between MCSO wagon drivers and arresting agencies, to facilitate efficient routing and pickups. Currently, there does not appear to be a formal system guiding which wagon driver picks up which arrestee. Drivers were once assigned to quadrants and would pick up arrestees in their territory; however, this system has broken down as staffing levels have declined. MCSO may be able to increase productivity by implementing prioritization and routing systems to help ensure MCSO drivers as using the most efficient routes to pick up arrestees.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 72 –
Similarly, MCSO and the arresting agency at times duplicate transports. For example, if the arresting officer collects drug paraphernalia or other items that need to be delivered to IMPD headquarters, they must drive to the Intake building to deliver these items. However, in interviews, wagon drivers reported that in these cases, arresting officers often still call a wagon to transport their arrestee, resulting in both the arresting officer and the wagon conducting the same route. In these circumstances, it would be recommended that the arrestee remains in the custody of the arresting officer who would assume responsibility for conducting the arrestee transportation.
Assess cost of providing upgrades to improve reliability of wagon air conditioning: MCSO’s wagon fleet struggles to consistently provide adequate air conditioning to both the driver and arrestee compartments. As a result, wagons must return to intake within two hours of picking up an arrestee. Given the extreme temperatures that can occur in Indianapolis, a lack of air conditioning can pose a safety risk to both MCSO staff and arrestees. Medical security costs
Overview and summary of findings The Jail Division provides security to arrestees and inmates who receive treatment at Eskenazi Hospital. MCSO’s annual expenditures on arrestee and inmate medical security have remained relatively flat at $1.2–$1.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017. The section’s staffing has also remained flat at an average of 17 deputies per year. However, this metric does not appear to reflect actual staffing with the section. When demand for deputies is high at Eskenazi Hospital, MCSO reassigns deputies from other posts within the Jail Division, including arrestee transportation and jail operations. This is a recommended practice, providing resiliency, and allows MCSO to most efficiently utilize its available staffing to meet demand. However, as there is no data to track the deployed staffing level, the scheduled staffing levels do not accurately reflect the need for staff at Eskenazi. Overtime dedicated to inmate medical security increased by 146 percent between 2015 and 2017, from $61,000 in 2015 to $150,000 in 2017. Inmate medical security overtime has accounted for approximately 3 percent of total MCSO overtime costs each year from 2015 to 2017. At the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain charges require 24-hour supervision by deputies, known as “sitters.” The need for sitters can sharply increase demand for deputies at Eskenazi. In 2016 and 2017, approximately 1,200 inmates or arrestees at the hospital required a sitter, and the average length of stay for an arrestee requiring a sitter was 1.2–1.4 days. This demand data suggests that MCSO requires sitters for 1,440–1,680 days per year, requiring continuous supervision 24-7. The MCSO data set with information about “sitters” lacked a discharge date for approximately 9 percent of inmates/arrestees each year. KPMG has excluded these individuals from the analysis due to lack of data. Future efforts to estimate the demand for sitters at Eskenazi Hospital could benefit from expanded data tracking on the average length of stay and reason for individuals who require sitters. KPMG identifies a number of opportunities for efficiencies related to inmate medical security on pages 70-72 of this report.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 73 –
Adopted Expenditures Average Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) staffing* expenditures 2015 $1.1 million $1.2 million 17 $61,000 2016 $1.0 million $1.2 million 17 $137,000 2017 $1.1 million $1.3 million 17 $150,000 2018 (through $927,000 $598,000 15 $76,000 June) *Yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends, Budgeted expenditures compared to actual medical security expenditures MCSO’s annual $1,400,000 expenditures on inmate medical security have $1,200,000 remained flat at $1.2–$1.3 $1,000,000 million per year since 2015. MCSO is on track to spend $800,000 in this range in 2018 based $600,000 on year-to-date
Expenditures $400,000 expenditures. $200,000 Staffing trends, $- medical security 2015 2016 2017 Year Inmate medical security Total Budgeted Total Expenditures staffing remained steady at 17 deputies from 2015 to 2017, before declining by 12 percent, or 2 deputies, to 15 staff in 2018.
It is important to note, however, that this metric does not reflect the actual staffing consumed by inmate medical security. When demand for deputies is high at Eskenazi Hospital, MCSO reassigns deputies from other posts within the Jail Division, including arrestee transportation and jail operations. This is a recommended practice as it provides resiliency and allows MCSO to most efficiently utilize its available staffing to meet demand. However, as this actual staffing level is not compiled, currently recorded staffing levels do not accurately reflect the need for staff at Eskenazi. KPMG recommends that MCSO begin tracking the number of deputies present at Eskenazi each day to improve measurements of demand and forecasting of staffing requirements.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 74 –
Overtime trends, medical security Overtime dedicated to inmate medical security increased by 146 Medical security overtime compared to staffing percent between 2015 and 2017, $160,000 18 from $61,000 in 2015 to $150,000 in $140,000 16 2017. The majority of this increase 14 occurred from 2015 to 2016, when $120,000 12 overtime costs grew by 124 percent. $100,000 As demand data is not available for 10 $80,000 2015, it is difficult to assess the 8 $60,000 driver of these increased 6
expenditures from 2015 to 2016. $40,000 4 Number Staff of Overtime Overtime Spending $20,000 2 Overtime expenditures increased by 10 percent from 2016 to 2017. $- 0 Demand for sitters decreased by 2015 2016 2017 approximately 14 percent during this Year period. While the number of Staffing Medical Security Overtime individuals requiring sitters held constant at approximately 1,200 each year, the average length of stay decreased from 1.4 days in 2016 to 1.2 days in 2017. This resulted in sitters for 1,680 bed days in 2016 versus 1,440 days in 2017.
While demand for sitters decreased, increased Salary budget versus salary and overtime overtime in 2017 may have expenditures resulted from growth in the total number of arrestee $1,000,000 transports to Eskenazi, $900,000 which grew by 23 percent $800,000 from 2016 to 2017. $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 As shown in the figure to $400,000 the right, salary Funding $300,000 $200,000 expenditures for inmate $100,000 medical security are largely $- in line with the adopted 2015 2016 2017 salary budget for inmate Year medical security. This suggests overtime levels do Salary Expenditures Overtime Expenditures not result from unfilled vacancies for this function. Salary Budget However, an assessment of required staffing levels based on demand should be conducted, which could help to reduce overtime expenditures.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 75 –
Demand trends, medical security The total number of arrestees transported to Eskenazi Hospital Arrestee transports to Eskenazi Hospital grew by 23 percent between 2016 5,000 and 2017, from 3,205 in 2016 to 3,952 in 2017. This data was not 4,000 available for 2015. 3,000
At the hospital, arrestees or inmates 2,000 with certain charges require 24-hour 1,000 supervision by deputies, known as
“sitters.” The need for “sitters” can 0 Number Number Transports of sharply increase demand for 2016 2017 deputies at Eskenazi. Year
In both 2016 and 2017, Street arrests APC hold MCJ hold approximately 1,200 inmates or arrestees at the hospital required a sitter. While the number of individuals requiring sitters held constant, the average length of stay decreased from 1.4 days in 2016 to 1.2 days in 2017. This resulted in sitters for 1,680 bed days in 2016 versus 1,440 days in 2017, a decrease of 14 percent.
MCSO data about inmates or arrestees who require “sitters” lacked a discharge date for approximately 9 percent of inmates/arrestees each year. As a result, KPMG has excluded these individuals from the analysis. Future efforts to estimate the demand for sitters at Eskenazi Hospital could benefit from expanded data tracking on the average length of stay and reason for individuals who require sitters.
Opportunities, inmate medical security KPMG identified a number of steps that MCSO may consider to improve data collection and reduce costs related to inmate and arrestee medical security:
Expand data collection to allow for measurement of demand: MCSO can improve measurement and forecasting of demand for deputies at Eskenazi Hospital by tracking the section’s actual staffing, including deputies reassigned temporarily, as well as the average length of stay of all arrestees/inmates who require “sitters.” This expanded data collection will also enable MCSO to adopt demand-based scheduling and overtime optimization for this section.
Assess impact of requiring arresting agency to provide medical security to arrestees or to reimburse MCSO for the cost of arrestee medical security: Currently, arrestees who require medical attention are booked remotely at the hospital and their medical costs become the responsibility of MCSO. As a result, the MCSO budget bears the burden of costs incurred because an arresting officer at an outside agency chose to make an arrest.
The City-County Council and mayor could consider two options to reduce this cost burden on the MCSO budget:
• First, the City-County Council, Mayor, and sheriff could require the arresting agency to retain responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital and providing medical security until the arrestee is medically cleared to enter an MCSO jail. MCSO-funded hospital protective services should be limited to inmates already booked into the jail.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 76 –
• Alternatively, the City-County may determine that as a custody agency, MCSO is best equipped to provide protective services to arrestees at the hospital. In this case, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting agency to reimburse MCSO for the fully loaded cost of transportation and protective services provided to the arrestee. The option makes considerable sense considering the low cost profile of MCSO and the professional training to do the job.
In both scenarios, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting agency, rather than MCSO, to assume responsibility for the arrestee’s medical expenses, security, and transportation until they are medically cleared to be booked into an MCSO jail facility.
These changes would result in a realigning of some costs for arrestee medical security to IMPD, which accounts for 70 percent of arrests. It would also result in additional revenue directed to the City-County from the 10 percent of arrests that are conducted by outside agencies such as the Lawrence, Beech Grove, or Speedway Police Departments or Indiana State Police.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 77 –
Criminal Division
Criminal division
Key responsibilities of the Criminal Division include serving in-county criminal (felony and misdemeanor) warrants, maintaining and monitoring the Sexual and Violent Offenders (SOVO) registry, and operation of the Failure to Appear section. KPMG’s assessment of Criminal Division operations focused primarily on the Criminal Warrants section and SOVO Registry section. Overview and summary of findings A number of Criminal Division responsibilities not related to warrants or the SOVO registry were transferred to the Judicial Enforcement Division in 2016. This reorganization resulted in significant changes to the Criminal Division’s budget and staffing. Expenditures on Criminal Division operations fell by 56 percent from 2015 to 2016 as responsibilities were reassigned. Criminal Division staffing 50 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 145 staff in 2015 to 72 staff in 2017. Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many Criminal Division deputies, pertaining to the risks that can accompany field operations when serving warrants or conducting SOVO checks. While the Criminal Division’s portfolio has shifted, demand is increasing for two of the Criminal Division’s core responsibilities: serving in-county criminal warrants and monitoring SOVO offenders. The number of warrants served by the Criminal Division grew by 137 percent from 2015 to 2017. The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under supervision grew by 15 percent during the same period. Criminal Division overtime has decreased even as MCSO’s overall overtime usage has increased: the Division accounted for 14 percent of total MCSO overtime expenditures in 2015 and just 4 percent in 2017. Criminal Division overtime expenditures fell by 33 percent from 2015 to 2017 as the Division’s responsibilities were reassigned. While the Division’s overall overtime expenditures have declined, overtime increased by 24 percent in the Criminal Warrants section, as discussed on page 85 of this report. KPMG identified a number of opportunities for efficiencies to increase productivity within the Criminal Division, focusing on the criminal warrants and SOVO registry sections, as discussed on pages 83-84 and 87-88 of this report.
Adopted Expenditures Share of Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) MCSO budget Staffing* expenditures 2015 $11.1 million $10.6 million 9% 145 $0.3 million 2016 $5.1 million $4.7 million 4% 75 $0.1 million 2017 $8.1 million $5.7 million 5% 72 $0.2 million 2018 (through $4.0 million $2.7 million 4% 78 $0.1 million June)
*staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 79 –
Budget trends, Criminal Division MCSO’s expenditures on Criminal Division operations fell by 56 percent from 2015 to 2016 as a large portion of the Division’s responsibilities were reassigned to the Judicial Enforcement Division. Despite the realignment of responsibilities, the Division’s expenditures then grew by 21 percent from 2016 to 2017 and appear on track to surpass their 2017 levels in 2018 based on year-to-date expenditures. Staffing trends, Criminal Division Criminal Division staffing fell by 48 percent from Criminal Division staffing against overtime 2015 to 2016 as $350,000 160 responsibilities were transferred to the Judicial $300,000 140 Enforcement Division. In 120 total, Criminal Division $250,000 staffing fell by 50 percent 100 $200,000 from 2015 to 2017, from 80 145 staff in 2015 to 72 $150,000 staff in 2017. 60
$100,000 Number Staff of In focus groups and 40 interviews, MCSO staff Overtime Expenditures $50,000 expressed frustration 20 regarding pay inequities $- 0 between deputies in the 2015 2016 2017 Criminal Division as Year compared to the Jail Division. This disparity negatively affects morale. Total Staffing Overtime In particular, deputies commented that the pay disparity was disproportionate based on the job responsibilities within each division in particular the risks involved in serving warrants. MCSO has developed a plan, Plan 2018, to create pay parity across MCSO but will require funding to implement this plan in future budgets. Overtime trends, Criminal Division Criminal Division overtime has decreased even as MCSO’s overall overtime usage has increased: the division accounted for 14 percent of total MCSO overtime expenditures in 2015 and just 4 percent in 2017.
Criminal Division overtime expenditures fell by 62 percent in 2016 as the Division’s responsibilities and staff were realigned to the Judicial Enforcement Division. From 2015 to 2017, Criminal Division overtime fell from 14 percent of the MCSO total to 4 percent, while Judicial Enforcement Division overtime grew from 3 percent to 10 percent of MCSO’s overtime totals.
However, overtime expenditures increased by 75 percent between 2016 and 2017. The 2016–2017 increase likely resulted from increasing demand for the Division’s remaining responsibilities, as warrants served increased by 65 percent and offenders monitored grew by 10 percent, while the Division’s staffing held constant.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 80 –
Demand trends, Criminal Division The number of warrants served by the Criminal Division grew by 137 percent from 2015 to 2017. The number of warrants served grew by 43 percent from 2015 to 2016 and by 65 percent from 2016 to 2017. The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under supervision grew by 4 percent from 2015 to 2016 and 11 percent from 2016 to 2017. Additional detail on demand trends for the SOVO Registry and Criminal Warrants sections are available in the relevant sections of the report below.
Warrants and SOVO demand 5,000 600 4,500 4,000 500 3,500 400 3,000 2,500 300 2,000 1,500 200
1,000 100 Number Number Warrants of 500 Number Offenders of - - 2015 2016 2017 Year
Total warrants Offenders under supervision
Opportunities, Criminal Division Pay parity: Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many Criminal Division staff, given the level of risk that can be associated field operations when conducting SOVO checks. Pay parity across MCSO divisions could increase staff morale and retention.
An in-depth examination of the operations of the Criminal Warrants section and SOVO section is included in the following pages. SOVO registry
Adopted Expenditures Average Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) staffing* expenditures 2015 $0.8 million $976,000 12 $19,000 2016 $1.0 million $768,000 11 $27,000 2017 $1.3 million $790,000 9 $16,000 2018 (through $0.7 million $383,000 9 $6,000 June)
*yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 81 –
Budget trends, SOVO Registry MCSO’s annual expenditures on SOVO registry monitoring have declined by 20 percent since 2015. MCSO spent between $760,000 and $780,000 per year on SOVO duties in 2016 and 2017 and is on track to spend in this range in 2018. MCSO’s SOVO expenditures have consistently fallen short of the budgeted amount.
Staffing trends, SOVO SOVO overtime expenditures as compared to Registry staffing SOVO staffing declined by 25 percent $30,000 14 between 2015 and 2017, from 12 $25,000 12 deputies to 9 deputies. This reduction 10 in staffing likely stems from MCSO’s $20,000 difficulties recruiting and retaining 8 employees and contrasts with rising $15,000 levels of demand within the section, 6 $10,000
as detailed below. 4 Number Number Staff of $5,000 2 Overtime trends, SOVO Overtime Expenditures $- 0 Registry 2015 2016 2017 The SOVO Registry section consumes Year less than 1 percent of total MCSO overtime expenditures, typically Staffing (Average by year) totaling less than $20,000 per year. SOVO Overtime, Expenditures Based on year-to-date expenditures, SOVO registry overtime expenditure is on track to be lower in 2018 than in previous years, and it appears to be reducing despite an uptick in the number of offenders under supervision.
Demand trends, SOVO SOVO overtime expenditures as compared to registry individuals under supervision While budget expenditures and $30,000 600 staffing have declined since 2015, $25,000 500 demand in terms of the number of $20,000 400 offenders under supervision has increased. The total number of $15,000 300 offenders monitored through 30-day $10,000 200 checks by SOVO deputies increased $5,000 100 by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017,
from 493 to 567. As the number of $- - Overtime Expenditures Overtime individuals monitored has risen, the 2015 2016 2017 section’s expenditures per monitored Year offender have decreased from $1,980
per offender in 2015 to $1,393 in 30 day checks conducted SOVO overtime Number Individuals of Supervised 2017.
Indiana state law requires checks to be conducted on a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once every 90 days. Currently, the SOVO section conducts these checks every 30 days—more often than
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 82 –
legally required. As discussed in the “Opportunities” section on page 83, MCSO could assess the impact of switching to a risk-based monitoring tool on both efficiency and effectiveness.
When benchmarking the City-County to other jurisdictions, the City-County appears to have comparatively high levels of demand for SOVO Registry services. Marion County has the third highest number of registered sex offenders per square mile, at approximately 7, amongst its peer agencies nationally. The Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office led the comparison group at 21 per square mile, while the average across the group was 4.9 per square mile.
Registered sex offenders per square mile, by county
Lake County Sheriff's Department Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office Fayette County Sheriff’s Office Jacksonville Sheriff's Office East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office Franklin County Sheriff’s Office Richmond County Sheriff's Office Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office
Davidson County Sheriff's Office Sheriff's Sheriff's Office Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department Marion County Sheriff Office Denver Sheriff Department Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Numbered of Registered Sex Offenders
In 2018, there are a total of 1,739 sex offenders registered in Marion County, 656 of which are sexual violent offenders, upon which MCSO conducts checks every 30 days. The additional offenders are assigned to field deputies to monitor in the course of their daily duties. When compared to the per capita population, Marion County has the second highest sex offender population, as shown in the graphic below.
Sex offenders per capita
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, MA Lake County Sheriff's Department, IN Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, OH Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office, VA Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, IN Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, KY Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, TN Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office, PA Denver Sheriff Department, CO
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, FL Sheriff's Sheriff's Office East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, LA Davidson County Sheriff's Office, TN Marion County Sheriff Office, IN Richmond County Sheriff's Office, GA 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 Number of Registered Sex Offenders
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 83 –
Productivity, SOVO Registry Based on the number of offenders monitored in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to identify an appropriate staffing level for the SOVO Registry section. KPMG made a number of assumptions based on the information received in focus groups and interviews; these assumptions were designed to be conservative. MCSO can refine this analysis to determine the number of SOVO registry staff required to meet demand. For example, the productivity analysis below includes a recommended staffing level if MCSO continues its current policy of conducting checks every 30 days and a recommended staffing level if MCSO shifts to a policy of conducting checks every three months, as legally mandated.
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to conduct SOVO check 0.5 Travel time 1 Paperwork/impairment time per check 0.5 Total hours per SOVO check 2
MCSO monitored 567 registered offenders in 2017. Based on the current policy of conducting checks every month, this work would have required 6,804 checks, which would have consumed 13,608 hours of deputy time.
Based on KPMG’s calculations, an MCSO deputy’s productive hours—the number of hours available to work after training, sick, and vacation leave are factored in—were 1,782 over the course of 2017. Based on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately eight deputies over the course of the year to conduct 13,608 checks. The SOVO Registry section’s staffing was nine deputies as of 2017, two of whom are dedicated to tips and investigations.
If MCSO were to shift to a policy of conducting checks every 90 days, as required by law, monitoring 567 offenders would require 2,268 checks, which would consume 4,536 hours of deputy time. Based on MCSO’s productive hours, this would allow the SOVO section to meet its checks with a staff of three deputies.
Opportunities, SOVO Registry Implement a risk-based approach to SOVO monitoring: Indiana state law requires checks to be conducted on a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once every 90 days. Currently, the SOVO section conducts these checks every 30 days—more often than legally required. There may be an opportunity to review the internal requirement for 30-day checks on this population of registered offenders to ensure it is in line with leading practices and based on the associated level of risk.
For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses using a risk assessment tool to measure an offender’s associated risk and then tailoring supervision intensity to this risk level. The organization notes, “Sex offenders vary in their risk of reoffending, and respond differently to various
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 84 –
forms of treatment and supervision.”16 IACP argues, “Valid and accurate risk assessments allow law enforcement to allocate resources to those offenders posing the greatest threat to the community.”17
The implementation of a risk-based verification tool could be used to determine the intensity of monitoring required for offenders on an individual basis, i.e., which offenders require additional checks and which could be supervised per the requirements of the statute. The use of a risk-based tool would allow for prioritization of checks and ensure the appropriate timeliness of checks. In addition, it could assist in alleviating capacity and potentially increasing the effectiveness of SOVO personnel to allow them to conduct more thorough checks and investigations.
Review MCSO process for registering offenders: Currently, SOVO registration is conducted by one lieutenant during the day shift, who completes the registration and collects the required information from the offender. As registration operates 24 hours a day and seven days a week, after-hours registration is an ancillary duty for Records staff. During workshops, MCSO staff reported that due to the lack of assigned staff for after-hours registration, this can lead to higher error rates and may increase the risk for MCSO and the public. These mistakes can create risk for MCSO if they are later not able to locate SOVO offenders and can create additional work for the staff who must correct these errors. MCSO may benefit from assessing the most efficient staffing and force mix for this post. For example, a lower cost resource than a lieutenant may be able to conduct these duties during the day, and the position may benefit from dedicated after-hours staff. The registration process is also an opportunity to assess whether an offender is also being supervised by other City-County agencies, such as probation or community corrections, who may be able to serve as partners in the City-County’s monitoring efforts.
Implement routing optimization to improve efficiency: The SOVO section may be able to increase its productivity through the adoption of routing software to identify the most efficient means for each deputy to conduct their assigned checks. Currently, deputies spend approximately 15 minutes a day calculating their route for the day; this is conducted via various means depending on the deputy however generic free mapping tools are primarily used. A specialized routing software that could also account for prioritization of checks could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of SOVO personnel. Criminal Warrants
Adopted Expenditures Average Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) staffing* expenditures 2015 $1.0 million $1.4 million 20 $61,000 2016 $1.5 million $1.6 million 24 $55,000 2017 $2.7 million $1.7 million 26 $75,000 2018 (through $1.7 million $0.7 million 20 $27,000 June)
16 “Registering and tracking sex offenders,” IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, http://www.theiacp.org/model- policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/08/SexOffenderPaper.pdf
17 “Sex offenders in the community: Enforcement and prevention strategies for law enforcement,” International Association of Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 85 –
*yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends, Criminal Warrants MCSO’s annual expenditures on criminal warrants grew by 25 percent from 2015 to 2017, from $1.4 million to $1.7 million. Based on year-to-date spending, they appear on track to return to near their 2015 levels in 2018 based on year-to-date expenditures.
Staffing trends, Criminal Warrants Criminal Warrants staffing increased by approximately 30 percent from 2015 to 2017 before returning to its 2015 level in 2018.
Overtime, Criminal Warrants As MCSO’s overall overtime expenditures have increased, Criminal Warrants overtime has declined as a share of total overtime expenditures. In 2015, Criminal Warrants accounted for 2.8 percent of total MCSO overtime; by 2017, this number had fallen to 1.6 percent.
Criminal warrants overtime compared to staffing $80,000 30 $70,000 25 $60,000 $50,000 20 $40,000 15 $30,000 10 $20,000 $10,000 5
Overtime Overtime Expenditures $- 0 2015 2016 2017 Year
Staffing Criminal warrants overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 86 –
Overtime expenditures appear to fluctuate based on staffing and demand. Overtime fell from 2015 to 2016 as staffing increased, even as the number of warrants served grew by 30 percent. Overtime, however increased from 2016 to 2017 as the number of warrants served increased by an additional 40 percent while staffing increased by just 8 percent.
Number of warrants served compared to overtime $80,000 5,000 $70,000 4,500 4,000 $60,000 3,500 $50,000 3,000 $40,000 2,500 $30,000 2,000 1,500 $20,000 1,000 $10,000
Overtime Overtime Expenditures 500 $- -
2015 2016 2017 Number Warrants of Served Year
Total warrants served Criminal warrants overtime
Demand, Criminal Felony and misdemeanor criminal warrants Warrants served The number of criminal warrants 3500 served more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, 3000 increasing from 1,890 to 4,482. 2500 With this increase, the expenditure 2000 per warrant served fell by 47 1500 percent. 1000 Even as the number of warrants 500 served has increased, the ratio of Number Warrants of 0 felony to misdemeanor warrants 2015 2016 2017 has remained constant at 3:1. Year
Felony warrants Misdemeanor warrants
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 87 –
Productivity, Criminal Warrants Based on the number of warrants served in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to identify an appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Warrants section. While KPMG made a number of assumptions based on the information received in focus groups and interviews, MCSO can refine this analysis to determine the number of staff required in the Criminal Warrants section to meet demand.
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to serve warrant 1 Travel time (given an average of two attempts per successful 2 serving of warrant) Paperwork/impairment time per warrant 0.5 Total hours per deputy to serve a warrant 3.5
Three deputies are required to serve a criminal warrant. As a result, based on KPMG’s assumptions, it takes 10.5 hours of deputy time to serve one criminal warrant. Given that the section served 4,482 warrants in 2017, this work would have required 47,061 deputy hours.
Based on KPMG’s calculations, an MCSO deputy’s productive hours—the number of hours available to work after training, sick, and vacation leave are factored in—were 1,782 over the course of 2017. Based on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately 26 deputies over the course of the year to serve 4,482 warrants.
This productivity is in line with the section’s 2017 staffing of 26 deputies. Section staffing has fallen to approximately 20 deputies in 2018. As a result, this productivity analysis would forecast a potential reduction in the number of warrants served in 2018.
Opportunities, criminal warrants Adopt prioritization system for serving warrants: MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a system of risk-based prioritization to help ensure the highest priority warrants are served first and that appropriate resources are allocated to a warrant based on risk. Warrants are issued by the court and received by the Criminal Warrants section daily through a number of channels. MCSO could benefit from adoption of a system that collates warrants in real time and allows for prioritization based on charge type or the probability of success based on historical information. This could increase the effectiveness of deputies and allow for an improved “hit rate.”
Implement tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign responsibilities to the appropriate employee: Demand for services in the Criminal Warrants section comes in a variety of forms, including Crime Stoppers tips, ankle bracelet violations, manual handovers from previous shifts, and intra-office e-mails. In interviews, MCSO staff stated that each supervisor prioritizes and assigns tasks differently. The Criminal Warrants Section could benefit from developing standard operating procedures across shifts and supervisors that govern how warrants are prioritized and allocated to help ensure consistency in operations and clear direction within the section. In addition, it was noted that there is no system in place to track demand from the multiple sources, how warrants have been assigned, and if tasks and requests have been completed or are still pending. Currently, this information is verbally passed between supervisors or communicated through e-mail. The introduction of a tracking
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 88 –
system would provide a clear picture of demand within the section, facilitate communication between supervisors, and allow for real-time reporting.
Assess potential benefits of consolidating Criminal Warrants and Judicial Enforcement warrant sections: MCSO should consider the efficiencies that could be gained from the consolidation of the Criminal Warrants section and the Judicial Enforcement Warrants section. Both sections provide a similar service, only differentiated by the primary type of warrant; however, Judicial Enforcement does serve out-of-county criminal warrants. Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived from the consolidation of the sections.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 89 –
Judicial Enforcement Division
Judicial Enforcement Division
Judicial Enforcement Division responsibilities are divided across a number of sections, including Civil Services, Public Services, and Courtline. KPMG’s analysis of the Judicial Enforcement Division focused primarily on its processes under civil warrants and civil process and providing court security. Overview and summary of findings The Judicial Enforcement Division’s expenditures doubled from 2015 to 2016 due to a realignment of responsibilities from the Criminal Division. Staffing grew by 80 percent, and overtime increased by 406 percent during this period. Staffing held steady from 2016 to 2017, growing by just six employees, while overtime increased by a further 45 percent to approximately $500,000. From 2015 to 2017, Judicial Enforcement Division expenditures grew by 116 percent, staffing increased by 88 percent, and overtime increased by 632 percent. With this increase, the Judicial Enforcement Division has grown to become the second highest consumer of overtime after the Jail Division. Judicial Enforcement accounts for approximately 10 percent of MCSO overtime annually. It is important to note, however, that due to overtime recording practices in the Judicial Enforcement Division, some of these overtime expenditures may reflect hours worked in the jail by Judicial Enforcement deputies. As a result, it is possible that the overtime figure shown above overstates the true cost of overtime in the Judicial Enforcement Division. In addition to the responsibilities acquired by the Judicial Enforcement Division in 2016, demand also appears to be growing within parts of the Division’s traditional portfolio. Under the Civil Process Section, the number of protective orders received increased by 112 percent from 2,665 in 2015 to 5,637 in 2017. In focus groups, Courtline Section staff reported that the number of courts served by the Division has grown in recent years and currently stands at 39. The number of warrants served by the Division’s Civil Warrants Section decreased by 62 percent from 3,875 in 2015 to 1,474 in 2017. In some sections, the Judicial Enforcement Division has not been able to meet increases in demand. In 2017, as the number of protective orders received doubled, the Judicial Enforcement Division served 50 percent more protective orders than the previous year yet still saw its completion rate for protective orders fall from 83 percent to 58 percent. Additionally, between 2015 and 2017 there was a 62 percent decline in the number of warrants served, as well as a decline in UTTs, tows, and warnings issued. This could suggest there were errors in the orders resulting in an inability to serve or that the increase in demand was too significant for the section’s current staffing and processes. KPMG identified a number of opportunities to increase operational efficiency within the Judicial Enforcement Division, as outlined within this section.
Adopted Expenditures Share of Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) MCSO budget Staffing* expenditures 2015 $4.7 million $4.8 million 4% 91 $69,000 2016 $8.9 million $10.1 million 9% 165 $348,000 2017 $6.3 million $10.2 million 9% 171 $504,000 2018 (through $8.0 million $5.1 million 8% 160 $263,000 June)
*staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 91 –
Budget trends, Judicial Enforcement Annual expenditures on judicial enforcement doubled from 2015 to 2016, as some functions were realigned from the Criminal Division. Expenditures have held steady at approximately $10 million per year in the years since and appear on track to maintain this level in 2018, based on year-to-date expenditures. Judicial Enforcement operations accounted for 4 percent of the total MCSO budget in 2015 and has since risen to 8–9 percent of the total MCSO budget. Staffing trends, Judicial Enforcement Judicial Enforcement Division staffing Staffing compared to overtime increased by 88 percent between 2015 and 2017. Total staffing in the Judicial $600,000 180 Enforcement Division grew by 81% from 160 2015 to 2016 and by an additional 4 percent $500,000 from 2016 to 2017. These increases may 140 have resulted from the Division’s increased $400,000 120 portfolio as functions were transferred from the Criminal Division: from 2015 to 2017, 100 $300,000 Judicial Enforcement staffing grew by 80 80 staff while Criminal Division staffing fell by
73. $200,000 60 Number Number Staff of 40 Court Security is the largest section within Overtime Expenditures $100,000 20 the Judicial Enforcement Division with 52 deputies and one civilian, approximately 30 $- 0 percent of the Division’s staffing as of June 2015 2016 2017 2018. Thirty-one deputies are assigned to the Year Public Services Section, making it the second largest section within the Division. Total Staffing Overtime Nine deputies are assigned to Civil Process, and four are assigned to Civil Warrants. Overtime trends, Judicial Enforcement The Judicial Enforcement Division’s overtime expenditures increased by 406 percent from 2015 to 2016 as the Division absorbed responsibilities from the Criminal Division. Overtime expenditures then grew by an additional 45 percent from 2016 to 2017. The Division’s overtime expenditures for 2018 appear on track to match or surpass their 2017 levels, based on year-to-date expenditures. This increase in overtime expenditures stems from the Division’s expanded portfolio, as well as increases in demand in some of the Division’s traditional responsibilities. This increase is also somewhat offset by the reduction in Criminal Division overtime.
The Judicial Enforcement Division accounts for 10 percent of MCSO’s total overtime, making it the second highest consumer of overtime after the Jail Division. Additionally, due to overtime recording practices in the Judicial Enforcement Division, some overtime expenditures attributed to the Judicial Enforcement Division in this analysis may actually reflect hours worked by Judicial Enforcement deputies in the jail. As a result, it is possible that the overtime figure shown above overstates the true cost of overtime in the Judicial Enforcement Division.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 92 –
Demand trends, Judicial Enforcement
Demand within the Division appears to Protective orders and civil warrants be increasing across some functions. The number of protective orders 6000 received increased by 112 percent from 2015 to 2017. Additionally, in interviews 5000 and materials provided to the project team, Judicial Enforcement staff 4000 reported that the number of courts 3000 served by the Division has grown in recent years. In addition, some judges 2000 have begun requesting two deputies in their courtroom, while other judges 1000 prefer to work with the same deputy
each day. There may be opportunities Number orders of warrants or 0 for MCSO to work with the courts to 2015 2016 2017 strengthen policies and processes Year around Courtline services - for example, Protective Orders received but not served ensuring that MCSO receives the court schedule more than 24 hours in Protective Orders served advance, and allowing for the rotation of deputies through courtrooms to Civil warrants served maximize resilience.
While demand has increased, the Civil Warrants Section’s ability to serve this demand has fallen. The number of warrants served by the Division’s Civil Warrants Section decreased by 62 percent from 3,875 in 2015 to 1,474 in 2017. During workshops, it was noted that three deputies are required to serve a warrant, and the entire Civil Warrants Section has fallen from eleven employees in 2016 to four in 2018, which may have contributed to the decline in warrants served. Deputies also commented that they had a success rate of 20 percent to 30 percent per day when serving warrants. In terms of protective orders, despite the Division’s staffing and expenditure increases, the Division was not able to meet these increases in demand. In 2017, 50 percent more protective orders were served than the previous year however, 2,000 were not served. As a result, the completion rate for protective orders fell from 83 percent to 58 percent. Judicial Enforcement leadership noted that many of these unserved orders were missing a service address or had been directed to the wrong jurisdiction by the court. In cases in which a warrant was not served, the Judicial Enforcement Division requires the three attempts and research measures to locate the subject of any protective order and/or warrant. Judicial Enforcement Division staff also noted that deputies are currently responsible for a number of ancillary duties, such as providing security to the Judicial Enforcement office and providing traffic details to the City-County, which compete for time with their core responsibilities. Productivity, Civil Warrants Based on the number of warrants served in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to identify an appropriate staffing level for the Civil Warrants Unit. KPMG made a number of assumptions based on the information received in focus groups and interviews. These assumptions were designed to be conservative. MCSO can refine this analysis to determine the number of staff required in the Criminal Warrants Unit to meet demand.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 93 –
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to serve warrant 0.5 Travel time (given an average of two attempts per successful 2 serving of warrant) Paperwork/impairment time per warrant 0.5 Total hours per deputy to serve a warrant 3
A minimum of two deputies are required to serve a civil warrant. As a result, based on KPMG’s assumptions, it takes six hours of deputy time to serve one civil warrant. The Civil Warrants section served 1,474 warrants in 2017. Based on the assumptions outlined above, this work would have required 8,844 deputy hours. A MCSO deputy’s productive hours in 2017 were 1,782. Based on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately five deputies over the course of the year to serve 1,471 warrants. The Civil Warrants section’s 2017 staffing was four deputies and has remained at this level in 2018. Productivity, Civil Process In workshops and materials provided to the KPMG team, MCSO management noted that Civil Process deputies serve an average of 40 papers per day. The Civil Process Section served approximately 44,600 papers in 2017. Across MCSO, deputies worked an average of 1,796 productive hours in 2017, once sick leave, vacation, and training were taken into account. These productive hours equate to approximately 244 eight hour shifts. Assuming civil process deputies served 40 papers during each of these shifts, the Section would require five deputies to serve 44,600 papers in a year. In 2017, the Civil Process Section had a staff of ten deputies.
Opportunities, Judicial Enforcement Division KPMG identified a number of opportunities to increase operational efficiency within the Judicial Enforcement Division: Implement internal pay parity: Similar to the Criminal Division, salaries for deputies in the Judicial Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many staff as they are undertaking field operations. Pay parity across the divisions could increase staff morale and retention.
Develop consistent prioritization system for serving warrants: Currently, the Civil Warrants Unit typically experiences a backlog of warrants waiting to be served. As a result, the Unit may benefit from consistently applying a system of risk-based prioritization for serving warrants. For example, the Unit may choose to prioritize warrants based on type (such as out-of-county criminal versus in-county misdemeanor), charge, or offender characteristics (for example, repeat offenders). In addition, the Civil Process Unit does not consistently conduct any form of prioritization other than by type of paper to be served. A prioritization tool which could prioritize by type, risk, likelihood for success, and other relevant factors could help increase the effectiveness of the Unit.
Implement a routing system to identify the most efficient route to accomplish assigned tasks: Once warrants and papers have been prioritized appropriately, the Judicial Enforcement Division may benefit from the use of an automated routing system capable of determining the most efficient route to accomplish a deputy’s assigned tasks. Currently, deputies use a range of free mapping tools to
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 94 –
determine their route for the day, spending approximately 15 minutes a day on this task. A specialized routing software could automate this task while incorporating the appropriate prioritization from a prioritization tool.
Adopt a tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign to the appropriate employee: A review of the Civil Process Unit in August 2016 revealed that the deputies pulled their routes, wrote their dailies by hand, coordinated and mapped their own stops, and spent many hours in the office. These actions consumed approximately 1.25 hours per deputy per day, significantly reducing their time in the field. The 2018 KPMG review identified a similarly heavy administrative burden on deputies, and the Unit may benefit from further action to resolve this challenge. Within the Civil Process Unit, deputies are assigned their tasks on a daily basis by an administrative assistant. These tasks are not sorted or allocated in any order; the deputies must stamp each paper for returns, approximately 40 per day, before manually typing each address into a generic map-based software to determine their route for the day. Once their route has been determined, the deputy spends approximately 30 minutes manually sorting their papers into the correct order to be served according to the route. At the end of the day, the deputy is required to re-sort their papers into the order previously provided by the administrative assistant. Conservatively, this process consumes approximately 1.25 hours per deputy per day, significantly reducing their time in the field. This equates to 2,600 hours per year, assuming eight deputies working five days per week, which is almost one full time equivalent (FTE) employee worth of time spent on the manual sorting of papers. MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a tasking and coordination system that eliminates the repeated reorganization of papers, instead ordering them based on priority and optimal route. Additionally, the Judicial Enforcement Division may experience increases in productivity by reducing deputies’ ancillary duties, such as providing security to the Judicial Enforcement office and providing traffic details to the City-County.
Assess potential benefits of combining criminal warrants and judicial enforcement warrant units: As previously outlined, MCSO should consider whether efficiencies may be gained from the combination of the Criminal Warrants Unit with the Judicial Enforcement Warrant Unit. Both units provide the same service, only differentiated by the primary type of warrant. The Criminal Division serves in-county criminal warrants while the Judicial Enforcement Division serves in-county civil warrants and out-of-county criminal warrants. Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived from the consolidation of the units. For example, it was noted during workshops that the civil warrant unit has been limited to four staff, when three deputies are required to serve a warrant, for a number of years which may have contributed to the decline in warrants served. In the event of consolidation, an assessment of combined demand could be conducted to determine appropriate staffing levels for the new section.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 95 –
Communications Division
Communications Division
The Communications Division is responsible for receiving 911 calls and assigning them to the appropriate law enforcement officer, serving as a link between the public and the 26 law enforcement areas in the City-County. The 911 call center processes approximately two million calls or text exchanges each year. Overview and summary of findings Demand serviced by the Communications Division has changed in recent years. The number of 911 calls received has decreased by 9 percent per year from 2015 to 2017. Some of these calls appear to have been replaced by text messages. The Communications Division began allowing for text-based communications in late 2015. Dispatchers engaged in 39,000 text sessions in 2016 and 47,000 in 2017. Annual expenditures for the Communications Division have remained relatively constant at $8–$8.5 million per year from 2015 to 2017. Staffing declined from 158 staff in 2015 to 145 in 2017; additionally, the number of individuals assigned to 911/Dispatch responsibilities declined by 10 percent during this period. Meanwhile, overtime expenditures grew by 50 percent from 2015 to 2017. Dispatch managers expressed concern that the Division averages 27 seconds to answer a 911 call, above the national standard of 10 seconds.
Adopted Expenditures Share of Overtime Year budget (inc. overtime) MCSO budget Staffing* expenditures 2015 $7.9 million $8.5 million 158 $281,000 $0.3 million 2016 $8.3 million $8.0 million 149 $259,000 $0.3 million 2017 $7.7 million $8.5 million 145 $426,000 $0.4 million 2018 (through $7.6 million $4 million 136 $291,000 $0.3 million June)
*Staffing drawn from annual budget presentations Budget trends, Communications Division Communications Division annual expenditures have remained relatively constant at $8–$8.5 million per year since 2015. The Division is on track to spend within this range in 2018, based on year-to-date expenditures.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 97 –
Staffing trends, Communications Division Communications Division staffing Dispatch overtime against staffing declined by 8 percent from 158 staff in 2015 to 145 staff in 2017. During this $450,000 180 period, the number of employees $400,000 160 assigned to 911/Dispatch functions $350,000 140 declined by 10 percent from 135 to 121 $300,000 120 employees. $250,000 100 $200,000 80 Additionally, the Division’s staffing has $150,000 60 Staffing declined since 2017. As of August 2018, $100,000 40 Communications Division staffing had $50,000 20 fallen to 136 employees, a decrease of Overtime Expenditures $- 0 14 percent from its 2015 level. 2015 2016 2017 Year Overtime trends, Staffing (Average by year) Communications Dispatch Overtime, Expenditures Division Communications Division overtime decreased by 8 percent from 2015 to 2016 before growing by 65 percent from 2016 to 2017. While overall staffing at the Division held steady from 2015 to 2017, this increase in overtime may result from the decline in the number of staff assigned to 911/Dispatch duties. The Communications Division had 135 individuals assigned to 911/Dispatch duties in 2015 and 2016. This staffing level fell by 9 percent from 2016 to 2017, the same period in which the Division experienced overtime increases. Demand trends, communications division The number of 911 calls received decreased by 9 percent per year from 2015 to 2017. 911 calls received and text sessions Some of these calls appear to have been 1,400,000 replaced by text messages. The Division 1,200,000 began allowing for text-based 1,000,000 communications in 2015. Dispatchers engaged in 39,000 text sessions in 2016 800,000 and 47,000 in 2017. The expenditures per 600,000 call has increased from $6.84 in 2015 to 400,000 $8.22 in 2017 as the number of calls has Sessions 200,000 fallen, while the Division budget has -
remained constant. 2015 2016 2017 Number of Calls Number Calls of and Text Year Opportunities Total 911 Calls Received Total Text Sessions KPMG identified a number of areas in which operational and policy changes may increase the productivity of the Communications Division:
Bring salaries in line with the market average: During interviews, Communications Division leadership reported difficulties recruiting and retaining quality candidates, resulting in vacancies within the Division.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 98 –
The Division was running 19 vacancies in July 2018 and reported running as many as 35 vacancies in recent months.
A 2015 study commissioned by the City-County found the starting salary for new Marion County PSAP employees is approximately 23.6 percent lower than both the surrounding Central Indiana PSAPs and the nearest comparable sized county outside of Indiana (DuPage County, IL). While dispatch staff received a salary increase in 2017, KPMG’s analysis found that dispatchers in Marion County continue to earn significantly less than dispatchers in other Indiana counties. Dispatchers can gain average pay raises of $2,500 to $10,000 by leaving Marion County for a similar position in counties adjacent to Marion County, as shown in the graphic below. Dispatchers in Lake County, Indiana receive an average annual take-home pay of $50,195, approximately $13,000 above the average in Marion County.
Mean take-home pay, dispatcher – nearby counties
Marion County $36,928.76
Morgan County $39,486.71
Johnson County $42,139.63 County
Hancock County $46,073.81
Hamilton County $46,847.83
Mean Take-Home Pay
*This figure draws on publicly available compensation information, which shows annual take-home pay, including overtime.
At approximately $37,000, the average dispatcher in the City-County earned 17 percent below the market average of $43,000 in take-home pay, which includes salaries and overtime compensation. This market average was defined as the average take-home pay for a dispatcher across the comparison group, composed of the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County and five counties adjacent to Marion County. Bringing dispatch staff pay in line with the market average may boost recruiting and retention and help reduce the Division’s overtime expenditures.
Assess opportunities for demand management: A significant percentage of 911 calls are for nonemergency situations. Online reporting for non-urgent crimes (e.g., theft) could help manage demand and help ensure MCSO dispatchers are available for emergency calls. Additionally, the increase in text sessions may show a public appetite for alternative methods of reporting and resolution.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 99 –
Fleet Analysis
Fleet analysis
Fleet composition The KPMG team analyzed data provided by MCSO and consisted of a vehicle inventory, current mileage report, fleet repair costs for CY 2016 through CY 2018, and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office Fleet Replacement plan, not dated. Currently, there is no official inventory of all MCSO vehicles with acquisition date, funding source, and additional equipment.
The MCSO fleet comprises 351 vehicles with a total mileage, of all units, greater than 33 million miles. The fleet is made of the following vehicle types:
Make Style Count Make Style Count Make Style Count Chevy 3500 2 Ford BUS 1 Pontiac SED4 1 BUS 1 CRV 68 Suzuki ATV 1 IMP 12 E350 5 Trailers 3
MVAN 1 F250 1 Total 351
TAHO 9 TAU 4
TRK 1 TRK 1
VAN 36 VAN 22
Chrysler SED4 6 Gator ATV 1
Dodge CARA 1 Harley FLHT 8 Davidsons
CHRG 151 Jeep CHER 1
DUR 2 KOMA 1
TRK 6 MERC GMRQ 3
VAN 1 Nissan SED4 1
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 101 –
The age of the fleet is relatively high with 76.4 percent of the fleet greater than 5 years old and comprising 29.3 million total miles (88.8 percent of the total fleet miles).
Vehicle count by model year 70 60 50 40 30 20
Number Number Vehicles of 10 0
Year
From a mileage perspective 156 of the total 351 units have greater than 100,000 miles. Based off of Indianapolis Fleet Manual subsection 6.1, 47 percent of the fleet has reached or exceeded its useful life.
As indicated in the Report to MCSO of Finance and Management, City-County Vehicle Fleet, dated March 15, 2018, the MCSO fleet is relatively old and has a large proportion of high mileage vehicles. From a useful life perspective, fleets that comprise a relatively large number of old and high mileage vehicles are more expensive to maintain due to a higher frequency of repairs and increasing cost of older model parts. Fleet utilization In order to enhance efficiencies of the fleet, it is important to first understand if the vehicles provided are meeting the transportation needs of the MCSO. Dodge Chargers make up the largest portion of the MCSO fleet as this make and model are what is used as the take-home fleet for officers. Currently, MCSO has 151 Chargers out of a total population of 351 (43 percent of the total fleet). Analyzing this vehicle class shows that the annual mileage is approximately 12,564 annually. There are currently 66 vehicles (44 percent of the population) that fall below this average annual usage threshold. Additionally, there are 14 vehicles that are “Unassigned” and used as a pool of vehicles that can be utilized as needed. Within the “Unassigned” population of vehicles, only three fall below the average mileage threshold. This high level of usage indicates that MCSO is already utilizing a vehicle pooling methodology.
The second largest segment of the vehicle population are Ford “CRVs” that account for 57 of the 351 total vehicles, 16 percent of the population. The average annual miles driven for CRVs is 14,544 miles. There are currently 31 units within this vehicle class that are below the average annual mileage. That constitutes 54 percent of the population that is driven less than the average.
With 97 vehicles (28 percent of the total fleet) across the two largest vehicle categories below the average annual usage, there may be an opportunity to rightsize the overall fleet to be aligned with the transportation needs of the MCSO staff.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 102 –
Cost to deliver In order to develop a cost-to-deliver figure, the KPMG team analyzed the repair costs for the fleet over a three-year period (2016 through 2018) and included four types of costs: Parts, Labor, Fuel, and Commercial. The commercial costs are representative of any maintenance that was outsourced to a private provider and not conducted in-house. The total costs to maintain the fleet by year are:
Year Total cost
2016 $ 1,433,030.71 2017 $ 1,532,003.06 2018 $ 795,592.95*
*The 2018 figures are year to date and do not constitute a full year.
Breaking down these aggregate costs by looking at the cost-to-repair units by model year, it is evident that older vehicles are costing more to maintain than new units:
Repair costs and population density by year $8,000 80 $7,000 Largest cost per 70 unit and largest $6,000 60 number of units $5,000 50 $4,000 40
$3,000 30 Repair Repair Costs
$2,000 20 Population Population Density $1,000 10 $- 0
Year
# of Units Avg. Cost per unit
In addition to costing relatively more per unit to repair, the older vehicles (model years 2008, 2009, and 2011) make up the largest proportion of the fleet population. This indicates that MCSO is paying a relatively higher cost per unit across a larger number of units to maintain its fleet.
Across the approximately three years of data, MCSO’s fleet has cost $2.17 million to maintain (excludes fuel costs). The vehicles within the red square, vehicle years 2008 to 2011, have accounted for $1.38 million of the total costs. This population of vehicles represents the largest drag on the maintenance operations and represents 63 percent of the total costs to maintain.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 103 –
Opportunities KPMG identified a number of opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness related to fleet operations.
Conduct a benchmarking study of similar Sheriff’s Offices to understand how similar MCSO is to peer agencies: This benchmarking could compare MCSO’s operating fleet metrics, such as number of vehicles, fleet composition (average age and mileage), and cost to maintain, etc. Additionally, this analysis could determine how many peer organizations also utilize a vehicle take-home program similar to MCSO’s current policy. The results of such analysis could serve to build a case for MCSO to reengage with leadership in an effort to budget for fleet modernization. This type of peer benchmarking may also serve to highlight areas where MCSO may be able to drive opportunities for efficiency.
The MCSO fleet appears to have some portion of the fleet that is underutilized when compared to the average annual miles driven. Cost efficiency from a capital (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) perspective could be gained if MCSO further utilized a vehicle pool methodology and disposing of underutilized vehicles. The reduction of vehicles would result in cost avoidance as the dispositioned vehicles would not be replaced. Further cost savings would be realized through reduced maintenance and fuel costs.
In order to maintain parity with the current view that take-home vehicles are a fringe benefit of the role, MCSO could institute a mileage reimbursement for officers. This would represent a lower cost option to pay officers by the mile as they drive into work and then utilize a pool vehicle for official duties. Further analysis would be required to ascertain the optimal mix of pool versus take-home fleet vehicles.
Investigate implementing an optimal replacement cycle: There are replacement guidelines and thresholds; however, MCSO is not funded to be compliant with these guidelines. MCSO’s fleet paradigm is akin to a “buy and hold” strategy that lowers CAPEX as new vehicles are rarely purchased. However, this strategy is more expensive in the long term as the OPEX costs of the older vehicles escalate.
Across the approximately three years of maintenance data, there are 58 vehicles that cost MCSO $10,000 or more in repair costs (Not including fuel costs). In total, this population has cost MCSO $738,000 across the timeframe. MCSO should undertake a replacement cycle financial analysis to determine the optimal replacement cycle and funding/financing options. There may be further opportunities to reduce CAPEX and OPEX by exploring leasing options versus outright purchase of MCSO vehicles.
Institute a robust metrics program that tracks OPEX costs by vehicle: Monitoring maintenance costs by vehicle type and age will enable MCSO fleet managers to make data-driven decisions in regards to vehicle dispositions. The current “buy and hold” methodology without active cost monitoring disguises the true life cycle costs of each unit. Additionally, actively monitoring repair costs will assist in highlighting the optimal point on the repair curve for vehicle disposition in order to maximize residual value.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 104 –
Detailed Recommendations
Detailed Recommendations
Office strategy Consider the development of a strategic plan to outline clear goals and facilitate coordination across divisions Organizations often benefit from defining long-term goals and developing plans to facilitate and measure progress toward these goals. Authoring a strategic plan could help MCSO outline an agreed-upon set of priorities to guide leadership decision making. For example, if MCSO’s strategic plan were to define boosting morale as a goal, MCSO leadership could evaluate the extent to which a wide range of processes across divisions and sections tie into the goal—including pay and promotion pathways, shift assignments, overtime policies, internal communications, and employee recognition efforts. This recommendation is critical if the office is to transform; the plan is the first step in communicating a new chosen path for the office. Demand management MCSO has the ability to reduce demand for arrestee transportation by approximately 14 percent through the implementation of three demand management strategies, yielding annual cost efficiencies of $320,000 per year based on conservative estimates.
By requiring the arresting agency, rather than MCSO, to transport arrestees to the hospital should they require nonemergency medical care, MCSO can reduce demand for arrestee transport by 7-9 percent, enabling cost efficiencies of $160,000–$200,000 per year.
Currently, if an arrestee is determined to have a nonemergency medical need, they are transported to the hospital by MCSO wagon, rather than taken to Intake. These individuals, however, have not yet been booked into the jail and will require medical clearance before being taken to Intake. The arresting agency should assume responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital.
Additionally, at the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain charges require 24-hour supervision by deputies, known as “sitters.” The need for “sitters” can sharply increase demand for deputies. In 2016 and 2017, approximately 1,200 inmates or arrestees at the hospital required a sitter. The arresting agency should retain responsibility for providing “sitters,” if necessary, until an individual has been cleared to enter the jail. This policy is common across the country and many jail systems do not accept responsibility for the arrestee until he or she is medically cleared.
Based on jail utilization data received by KPMG, MCSO transports at least 2,200–2,800 arrestees from the community directly to Eskenazi Hospital each year. This constitutes approximately 7-9 percent of total MCSO arrestee transports. Based on the average cost per transport, MCSO could save $160,000– $200,000 per year if these transports were conducted by the arresting agency, rather than MCSO.
Transferring these responsibilities to the arresting agency will allow MCSO to focus its resources on its core responsibilities: providing medical security and transportation to jail inmates. The city will need to consider a study to examine the budget implications as a reduction in MCSO’s budget would be needed and a portion of current costs allocated to IMPD to fund these expenses. It could be determined that the
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 106 –
costs of MCSO doing this for IMPD costs less due to the pay differential between the two agencies, but ultimately, a policy decision would need to be made regarding the appropriate level of funding to support some arresting decisions that could be avoided when accused offenders are injured and need medical attention.
Expanding the use of citations or court summons, rather than arrests, for appropriate low-level offenses can reduce arrestee transports by 7-10 percent, allowing for cost avoidance of $160,000 to $230,000 per year. In 2016 and 2017, approximately 17,000 instances of low-level charges--including Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, Public Intoxication, and Possession of Paraphernalia—were filed against arrestees transported to MCSO jail facilities. In some of these cases, officers may be able to avoid arrest if the individual does not pose a threat to public safety. Rather, it may be most efficient for officers to issue citations or a court summons.
Unnecessary arrests strain the MCSO workforce and constitute an inefficient use of City-County resources. Reducing arrests that are not necessary to protect public safety would reduce demand for both arrestee transport and jail beds in the City-County. A jail utilization study, as recommended by KPMG, would enable the City-County to most precisely calculate the financial impact of reducing arrests for low-level charges. Based on the average cost per transport however, if MCSO were to reduce arrestee transport by 7-10 percent through the use of summons for low-level charges, this would enable cost avoidance of $160,000 to $230,000 per year.
To achieve this, the City-County would need to work with all arresting agencies to develop a strategy to increase the use of citations or court summons and to assess the potential impacts of the implementation of this strategy.
Implementing a jail access fee—a fee paid by the arresting agency to MCSO to fund services related to intake and booking—would create an incentive for arresting officers to avoid unnecessary arrests while generating revenue for MCSO.
Jail access fees are implemented by a number of counties in California, typically for low-level arrests such as misdemeanor offenses or municipal code violations. While research on the impact of these fees is limited, the creation of a jail access fee would create incentives aligned with MCSO’s goals for demand management. Eighty percent of arrests in the City-County are conducted by an agency other than MCSO: approximately 70 percent of total arrests are conducted by IMPD while 10 percent are conducted by agencies such as the Lawrence, Beach Grove, or Speedway Police Departments or Indiana State Police.
A jail access fee would provide an incentive for arresting agencies to ensure officers minimize unnecessary arrests. The fee could change agency behavior by passing on some of the costs incurred by an officer’s decision to arrest, as opposed to using alternatives such as summons for low-level offenders. As of now, arresting agencies do not bear the operational burden caused by high arrest volumes. In focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff reported at times, seeing arbitrary increases in arrests not correlated with any systematic increase in crime, for example, after a new class of IMPD trainees graduate from academy.
Implementing a jail access fee would create an additional incentive to ensure arrests are only exercised when necessary to protect public safety and when alternative measures will not suffice. This would benefit MCSO operations, county finances, and outcomes for justice-involved residents of the City- County. The City-County would need to explore this option via a detailed study to understand the budget implications of partially reducing MCSO’s budget and creating a new pool of funding for IMPD to pay for
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 107 –
a portion of the current related costs related to the expenses noted above. It is possible that implementation of this policy option would require approval at the state level.
While fee revenue generated from IMPD would just amount to an in-county transfer, revenue generated from the 10 percent of arrests from outside agencies would be a net increase for the City-County. This demand management strategy would also have the effect of reducing the overall jail beds consumed per year per inmate. Demand-based scheduling MCSO can improve its service levels while minimizing FTEs and overtime through the implementation of demand-based staffing and scheduling. MCSO can optimize staffing and scheduling across divisions and sections by aligning employee supply with demand for services. Based on observations and on the schedules provided, MCSO staffing appears relatively flat in many divisions. Staffing levels appear based largely on the availability of staff, rather than trends in demand. By utilizing the organization’s collection of historical data, MCSO can maximize productivity by developing optimized schedules that take into account trends in demand for services. These schedules would link the number of deputies scheduled for each section and each shift to the typical demand experienced by that section at that time. A staffing and scheduling analysis can identify optimal shift patterns by section and by post. Optimized scheduling may help to increase productivity across the jail division; in the arrestee transportation, intake, jail operations, and within the communications division, in particular.
By implementing a demand-based staffing model, MCSO can help ensure its staffing practices are data- driven, smartly resourced, and in line with leading practices nationally. Based on previous projects, optimized scheduling can allow sheriff’s offices to achieve an estimated 10 percent reduction in resource supply hours while maintaining service levels.18 MCSO will likely need to hire given increased demand for sheriff services; however, reducing the number of resource hours needed by 10 percent would yield approximately $3 million per year in cost avoidance through reduced salary and overtime expenditures.
Expanded data collection to allow for complete tracking of staff supply and demand is a first step to enable demand-based scheduling.
To lay the groundwork for an effective staffing and scheduling review, MCSO will need to expand its data collection practices. In particular, the office should consider tracking the number of transportation wagons out at any given time, as well as the cross-utilization of staff between sections based on demand. Prioritization KPMG has identified opportunities for MCSO to concentrate its efforts on higher risk populations to most efficiently protect public safety, given limited resources and increasing demand.
By implementing a risk-based approach to SOVO monitoring in line with supervision levels mandated by statute, MCSO can enable a reduction of 66 percent in total checks by tailoring supervision intensity to risk level, yielding cost efficiencies of $510,000–$650,000 to MCSO. The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under MCSO supervision grew by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017. SOVO section staffing fell by 25 percent during this same period. Given growing
18 Estimates drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 108 –
demand and constrained staffing, MCSO should consider adopting a risk-based approach at a more granular level than currently adopted to most efficiently monitor its registered sexual and violent offenders, a model endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The office currently has no differentiation between those under active supervision.
Indiana state law requires the SOVO section to visit a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once every 90 days. Currently, MCSO policy dictates that the SOVO section should conduct these checks every 30 days, well above the legally required frequency. There is an opportunity to review the internal requirement for 30 day checks on this population of registered offender to ensure it is in line with leading practices.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses using a risk assessment tool to measure an offender’s dangerousness and then tailoring supervision intensity to this risk-level. The organization notes, “Sex offenders vary in their risk of reoffending, and respond differently to various forms of treatment and supervision.”19 IACP argues, “Valid and accurate risk assessments allow law enforcement to allocate resources to those offenders posing the greatest threat to the community.”20
Implementation of a risk based verification tool may enable a reduction in SOVO demand and the total volume of checks by allowing the section to determine the intensity of monitoring on an individual basis, targeting high-risk offenders for additional checks and supervising low-risk offenders based on the minimums required by statute.
Alternatively, the office could also develop a randomized supervision model based on an algorithm that determines the need for checks at any random interval while reducing the overall cost to the office and ensuring public safety. These types of models are being used in the physical security space to deter attacks on airports and other critical infrastructure. By randomizing the frequency of supervision, offenders will not know when or if a check will be conducted in any 30- or 90-day period; it may be once per quarter or four times. The model would have the capability to both assess risk factors while lowering the number of visits and costs.
Shifting from the current policy to the legally mandated number of checks could reduce the number of checks conducted by the section by 66 percent, yielding savings of $510–$650,000 per year based on the average cost of a check. Even a more conservative reduction of 40 percent, which would allow the section to keep high-risk SOVO registrants under heightened supervision, would yield savings of $300,000–$400,000 per year.
By implementing a prioritization tool for serving warrants, MCSO may be able to increase the number of warrants served and ensure the highest priority warrants are served successfully, without increasing its current staffing levels. MCSO’s Criminal and Civil Warrants units typically experience a backlog of warrants waiting to be served. As a result, the sections may benefit from developing a prioritization tool for serving warrants
19 “Registering and tracking sex offenders,” IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, http://www.theiacp.org/model- policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/08/SexOffenderPaper.pdf
20 “Sex offenders in the community: Enforcement and prevention strategies for law enforcement,” International Association of Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 109 –
that considers factors such as charge type, risk, likelihood for success, and other relevant factors that could help increase the effectiveness of the unit and contribute to a higher “hit rate.” Tasking and coordination MCSO can save an average of 30 minutes per deputy per day across a range of sections and units through the adoption of a tasking and coordination system to collate and track demand, assign tasks to the appropriate staff member, and track what work has been completed and what remains. Taken together, these reforms could free up to $183,000 per year in deputy time to be dedicated to other tasks. Across a number of sections and units—including the Arrestee Transportation section, Criminal Warrants Section, Civil Process Unit, and Civil Warrants Unit—MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a tasking and coordination system that collates demand from numerous sources, assigns this demand to the appropriate MCSO staff, and tracks which tasks have been completed and which are still pending.
For example, the demand for services in the Criminal Warrants Unit currently comes in a range of forms, from Crime Stoppers tips to e-mails. In interviews, MCSO staff stated that each supervisor assigns tasks differently, and updates on pending or completed tasks are often passed informally through e-mail or verbally during shift changes.
MCSOs could benefit from developing standard operating procedures across shifts and supervisors to govern how demand is allocated, ensure consistency in operations, and provide clear direction within the section. For additional details on recommended changes by section or unit, please refer to the relevant chapter above in the report.
Unit Estimated Estimated savings savings (time) (value of deputy time) Arrestee Transportation 30 minutes per deputy per day $61,000 per year Section Criminal Warrants Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $51,000 per year Civil Process Section 75 minutes per deputy per day $60,000 per year Civil Warrants Unit 30 minutes per deputy per day $11,000 per year
Routing MCSO can acquire and implement routing technology to identify most efficient routes for transportation-related services, saving 30 minutes of routing time per deputy per day or approximately $146,000 in staff time to be dedicated to other duties. A number of MCSO sections—including Arrestee Transportation, Criminal and Civil Warrants, and the SOVO Registry section—may benefit from technology that directs staff to the most efficient route to complete their tasks. In arrestee transportation, for example, arrestee pickups are not formally assigned. Rather, when a new location is entered in CAD, the drivers claim the pickups that are closest to their current location. This process is informal, making performance management difficult. Drivers were once assigned to quadrants and would pick up arrestees in their territory; however, this system has broken down as staffing levels have declined. Procuring routing software could allow for drivers to be assigned specific pickups based on their location designed to maximize efficiency based on the location of the wagon, its current passengers, and the length of time it has been away from Intake. Similarly, deputies serving warrants or conducting SOVO checks could benefit from a data-driven routing system that minimizes travel time and maximizes productive hours.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 110 –
Section/Unit Estimated Estimated savings savings (time) (value of deputy time) Arrestee Transportation 30 minutes per deputy per day $61,000 per year Section Criminal Warrants Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $51,000 per year Civil Process Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $23,000 per year Civil Warrants Unit 30 minutes per deputy per day $11,000 per year
Bring MCSO pay in line with market average By bringing salaries in line with the market average, MCSO can improve recruiting and retention, with a target goal of reducing vacancies by 80 percent and lowering deputy and detention deputy attrition by 50 percent. In focus groups and interviews, MCSO leadership reported difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, and a number of divisions struggled to fill vacancies. MCSO’s attrition rate, which has increased from 21 percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017, is at the high end of estimates of the national average.21 MCSO staff reported that issues with recruiting and retention stem in part from salary levels that are below the market average.
KPMG compared MCSO salaries with publicly available salary data from two sets of comparison counties: the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County and five counties adjacent to Marion County. These comparison cohorts included Lake County, Allen County, Hamilton County, St. Joseph County, Elkhart County, Hancock County, Shelby County, Johnson County, and Morgan County (Hamilton County was included in the large county cohort as well as the adjacent county cohort).
For each of the five positions assessed, the mean salary paid by Marion County was below the Peer Agency Average (defined as the average of the mean salaries of the full comparison cohort), as shown in the chart below. These numbers reflect average annual take-home pay, which includes overtime compensation. Notable outliers have been removed from the analysis.
Position MCSO average Peer agency average: Take-home Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $54,382 Detention Deputy $39,449 $41,713 Sergeant $50,631 $61,956 Court Security $33,742 $36,409 Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $54,382
To maximize productivity, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and HR policies that drive effective performance and employee assessment. Bringing salaries in line with the market average
21 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 111 –
in the City-County market will help recruit and retain high-quality employees and improve morale across MCSO divisions. Based on the current trainee salary and training times for deputies and detention deputies, as well as recruiting and equipment cost data received from MCSO, MCSO spends $1.1 to $1.4 million per year recruiting, equipping, and training deputies and detention deputies to replace those who leave the office. As a result, a 50 percent reduction in deputy and detention deputy attrition would yield cost reductions of $650,000–$750,000 per year. These savings could defray, but would not cover, the cost of salary increases. However, salary increases would have a number of benefits in addition to a reduction in training costs, including improved morale, heightened performance, and reduced recruiting costs. By continuing its efforts to shift force mix to maximize use of detention deputies, MCSO can create cost reductions of $2 million per year while maintaining current service levels. In 2014, 81 percent of Jail Division staff were deputies; that number has been reduced to 52 percent in 2018 as the office has shifted duties to lower-cost detention deputies and civilian staff. By shifting to a detention deputy-based model, MCSO is bringing its staffing policies in line with national leading practices and shifting to a staffing model that will allow the agency to provide high-quality service at minimal costs to the residents of the City-County.
However, MCSO’s effort to reverse the ratio of deputies to detention deputies from 3:1 to 1:3 has been hindered by MCSO’s difficulties recruiting and retaining detention deputies. In fact, the number of detention deputies declined from 2017 to 2018, which reflects MCSO’s challenges with retention in this position. MCSO should create promotion pathways for the detention deputy and bring salaries in line with market pay to allow for a change to MCSO’s force mix, which could yield cost reductions of $2 million per year based on MCSO’s current staffing mix and salaries.
Force mix: Deputies, detention deputies, and civilians, 2014–2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%
10% Share of Total Personnel Total Shareof 0% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year
% Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
Organizational structure By redesigning its pay and promotion pathways, MCSO can incentivize retention and employee performance, reducing attrition by 10 percent. Promotion and rewards can be a powerful tool to maximize staff performance and increase retention. The design of MCSO’s current pay and promotion structure does not incentivize retention. In focus groups and interviews, deputies reported that they would be eligible for a $500 raise if promoted to sergeant. Staff repeatedly noted that they did not feel incentivized to pursue a position with higher levels
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 112 –
of responsibility for such a small financial gain. The data supports the lack of financial benefit to the sergeant position: the mean take-home pay for MCSO is similar to the mean take-home pay for a deputy once overtime is taken into account. In interviews, staff also reported limited financial benefits to pursuing the position of captain and noted that their annual take-home pay might actually fall as captains are not allowed to work overtime. Additionally, the deputy pay scale does not allow for meaningful raises after seven years of service. Due to these limited pay and promotion pathways, some MCSO staff reported seeing their position as a job, rather than a career.
If MCSO is to retain top talent, it must provide high performers with opportunities for growth and commensurate financial gain. Promotion and pay policies that do not reward performance can result in an environment in which top performers leave for other agencies. To bring its HR policies better in line with the organization’s goals of incentivizing performance and retention, MCSO should consider creating a correctional sergeant position, to create a promotion pathway for correctional deputies, and building a pay schedule that rewards employees for strong performance and increased responsibilities. In addition to boosting morale and job performance, based on KPMG’s estimates of MCSO’s attrition-related recruiting, training, and equipment costs, a 10 percent reduction in attrition could yield cost avoidance of $110,000 to $150,000.
MCSO can boost morale within its ranks by enacting pay parity between positions in the Jail Division and Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions. Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division and Judicial Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many staff, given the dangers that can accompany field operations in the Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions. The Office has developed a plan to achieve pay parity across divisions and the City-County should dedicate the funding necessary to implement this plan.
MCSO can achieve increased resilience and improved service levels by combining the criminal warrants and judicial enforcement warrant sections, while allowing for a reduction in supervisory staff. MCSO should consider the efficiencies gain from the combination of the Criminal Warrants Unit with the Judicial Enforcement Warrant Unit. Both units provide the same service, only differentiated by the primary type of warrant; however, Judicial Enforcement serves out-of-county criminal warrants. Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived from the consolidation of the units. The structure of a new unit would eliminate some middle management positions that are duplicated across both divisions currently. Overtime optimization Develop policies to optimize use of overtime While MCSO is wise to focus on reining in its overtime expenditures, there are instances in which the use of overtime is efficient. For example, overtime shifts can be a cost-effective means of dealing with brief or irregular periods of high demand.
MCSO current policies regarding overtime, however, do not ensure it is used intentionally or efficiently. Staff in the Jail Division reported they would often show up at the jail unscheduled, rather than committing to a particular overtime shift, knowing that they would be able to work overtime.
MCSO’s staffing and scheduling optimization analysis should include an assessment of which sections might benefit from regularly scheduled overtime shifts aligned to peaks in demand and or staff impairment. To lay the groundwork for an effective staffing and scheduling review, MCSO will need to expand its data collection practices. In particular, the office should consider tracking the number of
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 113 –
transportation wagons out at any given time as well as the cross-utilization of staff between jail sections based on demand. Use of technology By investing in systems that allow for the automation of data collection, MCSO can halve the number of hours by staff spent on data collection. MCSO leadership has invested significant manpower in data collection and analysis. This focus on data- driven decision making can support continuous improvement, positive outcomes, and the most efficient use of City-County dollars. There likely is room for improvement, however, in shifting from manual to automated data tracking processes. Currently, data tracking occupies approximately 20 staff per week for a portion of their time. Investments that allow for a reduction in this workload can have a positive return on investment.
MCSO can reduce 911 calls and text message exchanges by 5 percent by creating an online reporting tool to enable nonemergency online reporting. A significant percentage of 911 calls are for nonemergency situations. As Dispatch staffing has declined and the division has struggled to find qualified applicants to fill vacancies, online reporting for non-urgent crimes (e.g., theft) provides an opportunity to manage demand and help ensure MCSO dispatchers are available for emergency calls. Fleet MCSO may be able to increase vehicle fleet efficiency by utilizing a vehicle pool methodology and disposing of underutilized vehicles. The MCSO fleet appears to have some portion of the fleet that is underutilized when compared to the average annual miles driven. A reduction of underutilized vehicles would result in revenue as the dispositioned vehicles would result in a salvage value. As these surplus vehicles would not be replaced, MCSO would generate additional value through costs savings associated with reduced maintenance and fuel costs.
To maintain the current policy of viewing take-home vehicles as a fringe benefit for officers in particular roles, MCSO could institute a mileage reimbursement for employees. This reimbursement presents a lower cost benefit that could be delivered to officers to reimburse them as they drive into work in their personal vehicle and then utilize a pool vehicle for official duties. Further analysis would be required to ascertain the optimal mix of pool versus take-home fleet vehicles.
MCSO could benefit from identifying and implementing an optimal replacement cycle. MCSO is not funded to be compliant with its current replacement guidelines. Rather, MCSO’s fleet paradigm is akin to a “buy and hold” strategy that lowers CAPEX as new vehicles are rarely purchased. However, this strategy is more expensive in the long term as the OPEX costs of the older vehicles escalates. MCSO should consider the full life cycle costs of its fleet in order to ascertain the optimal replacement cycle.
Across the approximately three years of maintenance data, there are 58 vehicles (~17 percent of the fleet) that cost MCSO $10,000 or more in repair costs. It is reasonable to expect this number to grow as the fleet continues to age. MCSO should undertake a replacement cycle financial analysis to determine the optimal replacement cycle and funding/financing options. There may be further opportunities to reduce CAPEX and OPEX by exploring leasing options versus outright purchase of MCSO vehicles.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 114 –
Policy Options for consideration by the City-County
Demand management The City-County can reduce demand for jail beds within the next five years by implementing evidence-based diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration that have been shown to improve recidivism outcomes. Well-designed diversion programs have the potential to reduce demand for jail beds by 5 percent–20 percent, yielding cost reductions of $3.5–$13.8 million per year. Data suggests that a significant number of arrestees are brought in for low-level offenses, including charges such as Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, Public Intoxication, and Possession of Paraphernalia. Nearly two-thirds of MCSO inmates have a length of stay of one to five days. Jail time often does little to address the root causes of criminal behavior, such as untreated mental health or substance use disorders. Jail stays also come at significant cost to the county: holding an individual in jail costs the City-County approximately $75 per day. MCSO jails have been operating in “crisis mode” for the past two years, meaning they are consistently above 97 percent capacity. Detention can be necessary to protect public safety. However, unnecessary incarceration diverts MCSO staff resources from individuals who truly pose a public safety risk, increasing the risk of accidents and burnout. Additionally, unnecessary incarceration can generate wider social costs to the residents of the City-County: parental incarceration is linked to mental health issues and antisocial behavior in children; possession of a criminal record can make it more difficult for citizens to find housing or employment in the long term. Individuals arrested and detained in jail, even for short stays, can miss shifts at work, losing income or even their job. These occurrences can result in negative outcomes and increased reliance on City-County services going forward. Drawing on research from across the United States, clear evidence exists that for specific categories of offenders, diversion may reduce offending much more effectively than incarceration and for much less cost. The City-County should consider opportunities to implement, expand, and improve rehabilitative programs and alternatives to incarceration. For example. MCSO currently employs behavioral managers who work with inmates while they are in custody to prepare them for successful reentry. While the theory of change behind this program is strong, it does not appear to track outcomes for its participants. Additionally, there may be opportunities to improve collaboration among the courts, MCSO, and community corrections. Given its challenges involving arrestee transportation, the City-County could benefit from the implementation of a pre-booking diversion program. For example, in Seattle, LEAD was targeted toward individuals suspected of low-level drug offenses or prostitution. LEAD participants had 50–60 percent lower odds of being re-arrested and 30–40 percent lower odds of being charged with a felony subsequent to program involvement when compared to a control group.22 An officer-assisted diversion program would reduce demand for arrestee transport for the 80 percent of arrestees who are brought in
22 “LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report,” Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab, University of Washington, http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7- 15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4percent3D
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 115 –
by agencies other than MCSO. Additionally, reducing recidivism related to low-level offenses could yield benefits to the City-County as a whole and reduce jail costs. Investing in evidence-based rehabilitative programs can generate a positive ROI by reducing future criminal activity in the City-County. These programs can also yield significant benefits to City-County residents by reducing crime rates while providing needed support to individuals in need. As a first step, MCSO should consider conducting a jail utilization study to gain a data-driven understanding of their jail population: identifying factors such as the size of the pretrial population, the number of inmates with behavioral health needs, and the population by charge type and recidivism risk. Based on these findings, the City-County can identify the alternatives to incarceration best suited to their justice-involved population. Well-designed diversion programs can reduce demand for jail beds in the City-County by 5 percent– 20 percent per year. Based on MCSO’s average daily population and jail costs on 2017, a 5 percent reduction would yield cost reductions of $3.5 million per year, a 10 percent reduction would yield savings of $7 million per year, and a 20% reduction would yield cost reductions of approximately $13.8 million per year.
Public safety tax The City-County may be able to raise more than $40 million in funding for public safety programs by increasing local income taxes in accordance with recently passed House Enrolled Act 1263. Signed in March 2018, House Enrolled Act 1263 allows counties to increase local income taxes to fund or maintain corrections facilities. In many counties, governments will be able to raise local income tax rates by 0.2 percent. In the wake of this law, the City-County may benefit from further investigation into public safety tax revenue as a funding stream for MCSO. If permitted under HEA 1263, a 0.2 percent increase in local income taxes in the City-County could yield an estimated more than $40 million in revenue.
There may be political obstacles to implementing such a tax at present, given that the City-County has experienced two public safety tax increases since 2011. However, given rising demand at MCSO, the City-County Council and mayor should consider whether such a tax would allow the City-County to make strategic investments that can reduce recidivism in the long term—delivering a positive return on investment, and reduce demand at MCSO, and improving outcomes of City-County residents.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 116 –
Transition Roadmap
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 117 –
Transition Roadmap
The diagram on the below outlines a potential three-year plan to implement the efficiencies recommended above.
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 118 –
Ap pendix A: Peer agency selection process
Review of potential comparison counties KPMG analyzed 34 potential comparison counties for the benchmarking analysis, based on five factors: Consolidated City-County government structure Population Geographical area Geographical distance from Marion County Household median income. This initial list included:
Geographical Geographic distance area from Marion Household
Population (Square County Median City-county State (2016) Miles) (Miles) Income Indianapolis-Marion Indiana 855,164 396.30 - $44,874 County, IN City and county of Colorado 693,060 153 2,149 $87,436 Denver, CO Augusta-Richmond Georgia 197,081 324.33 1,973 $103,801 County, GA Louisville-Jefferson Kentucky 616,261 380.42 710 $50,508 County, KY Nashville-Davidson Tennessee 660,388 504.03 252 $54,855 County, TN Boston-Suffolk Massachusetts 784,230 58.15 751 $52,435 County, MA Baton Rouge-Parish Louisiana 447,037 455.37 582 $41,449 of East Baton Rouge, LA Jacksonville-Duval Florida 926,255 762.19 508 $38,595 County, FL Lexington-Fayette Kentucky 318,449 283.65 584 $45,268 Urban County, KY Philadelphia- Pennsylvania 1,567,872 134.1 150 $53,178 Philadelphia County, PA Virginia Beach- Virginia 452,602 249.02 514 $42,661 Princess Anne County, VA New Orleans-Parish Louisiana 391,495 169.42 2,534 $85,634 of Orleans, LA
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 120 –
City-county State Population Geographical (2016) Geographic distance from area Marion Household (Square County Median Miles) (Miles) Income Macon-Bibb County Georgia 152,555 249.76 4,790 $80,513 Butte-Silver Bow Montana 33,853 718.48 2,175 $70,160 County Unified Kansas 2,907,289 151.6 999 $61,105 Government of Wyandotte County and City of Kansas City, KS Columbus- Georgia 197,485 216.39 2,291 $66,875 Muscogee County, GA Terrebonne Parish Louisiana 113,220 1231.82 705 $51,980 Consolidated Government City and County of Hawaii 992,605 600.74 107 $51,991 Honolulu Suffolk-Nansemond Virginia 89,273 400.17 783 $48,166 County Anaconda-Deer Montana 9,085 736.53 456 $40,757 Lodge County Lafayette-Parish of Louisiana 127,626 268.72 1,333 $39,580 Lafayette City and county of California 870,887 46.87 1,349 $39,212 San Francisco, CA Tribune-Greeley Kansas 776 778.45 847 $47,000 County Statesville-Echols Georgia 3,962 414.89 1,000 $83,334 County Chesapeake- Virginia 237,940 54.12 567 $50,089 Norfolk County Newport News- Virginia 181,825 68.71 508 $37,108 Warwick County Cusseta- Georgia 10,922 248.74 839 $89,428 Chattahoochee County Athens-Clarke Georgia 123,371 119.2 576 $49,890 County
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 121 –
City-county State Population Geographic (2016) Geographic distance area from Marion Household (Square County Median Miles) (Miles) Income Hampton-Elizabeth Virginia 135,410 51.41 527 $43,929 County Preston-Webster Georgia 2,599 209.12 656 $35,354 County Lynchburg-Moore Tennessee 6,323 129.22 438 $33,116 County City and county of Colorado 66,529 33.03 315 $49,496 Broomfield Hartsville-Trousdale Tennessee 8,271 114.19 238 $47,667 County Georgetown- Georgia 2,335 151.24 549 $37,072 Quitman County Nantucket- Massachus 11,008 44.97 556 $29,773 Nantucket County etts The City of New New York 19,745,289 NA 640 NA York-Counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 122 –
Based on an assessment of the qualifying criteria, KPMG identified a cohort of 10 city-county entities to guide the benchmarking comparison. After validating this comparison cohort with Marion County project steering committee, the KPMG project team added three additional counties to this comparison cohort: Lake County, Indiana; Hamilton County, Ohio; and Franklin County, Ohio. The final comparison cohort is listed below: 1. Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee 2. Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office, Virginia Beach-Princess Anne County, Virginia 3. Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida 4. Denver Sheriff Office, City and County of Denver, Colorado 5. Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia 6. East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7. Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office, Philadelphia-Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 8. Fayette County Sheriff, Lexington-Fayette Urban County, Kentucky 9. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, Boston-Suffolk County, Massachusetts 10. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky 11. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Lake County, Indiana 12. Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, Hamilton County, Ohio 13. Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Franklin County, Ohio
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 123 –
Appendix B: Sample interview and workshop questions
Interview and workshop questions General Questions: 1) By year, from 2016 to 2018, how many full-time sworn deputies did your Division/Section/Unit employ? How many correctional/detention deputies? How many civilian/classified staff? 2) As of FY 2017–2018, how many sworn deputies, correctional/detention deputies, and civilian staff were dedicated to the following functions: arrestee transportation, inmate medical security, etc. 3) By year, from 2016 to 2018, how many staff hours were used on overtime? What was the total cost of this overtime? 4) As of FY 2017–2018, how many overtime hours were dedicated to the following functions: arrestee transportation, inmate medical security, etc.? What was the cost of this overtime? 5) What is your Division’s annual attrition rate, as a percentage of your total workforce? 6) What does the day-to-day process consist of for your staff in your Division/Section/Unit? What are common pain points? Arrestee services: 7) What is the estimated annual cost to the Sheriff’s Office of transporting arrestees? 8) What is the estimated annual cost to the Sheriff’s Office of providing security at outside medical facilities while inmates or arrestees receive care? Inmate Transportation: 9) What is the average daily population across all of your correctional facilities? 10) How many inmates are transported by your Office each year? 11) How many sworn deputies are assigned to transportation duties within your Office? How many correctional/detention deputies? How many civilian staff? 12) How much overtime annually is used on transportation-related duties? (please include both hours and total cost in dollars) Fleet services: 13) How many vehicles does your Division operate, by type? What is your vehicle count, broken down by unit (e.g., corrections, criminal, administrative)? 14) What is the average mileage of the vehicles in your fleet, broken down by vehicle type? 15) What is the average age of your vehicles? 16) What is the average vehicle retirement age for your fleet, by vehicle type?
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 125 –
Ap pendix C: Data received
Data received Subject Date MCSO_KPMG_AGREEMENT REGARDING PROSPECTIV Contracts and 6/19/2018
E 6.pdf Agreements
MCSO_KPMG_AGREMENT REG. PUBLIC SAFTY.pdf Contracts and 6/19/2018 Agreements MCSO_KPMG_ARTICLE 3. GOV. OF INDY M. C. UNIG Contracts and 6/19/2018
OV.pdf Agreements
MCSO_KPMG_CHAPTER 13. COUNTY SHERIFF.pdf Contracts and 6/19/2018 Agreements 2018-03-15 Report to MCSO of Finance and Management Reports and Analyses 6/22/2018
– City County Vehicle Fleet.pdf
KSM Final Report on merger.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/22/2018 2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col Financial Data 6/25/2018
lection – Copy – Copy.xlsx 2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col Financial Data 6/25/2018
lection – Copy.xlsx 2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col Financial Data 6/25/2018
lection.xlsx 2017_Annual_PSAP_Expenditures_and_Funding_Data_Col Financial Data 6/25/2018
lection to State 1-31-2018.xlsx
2018 Communications Pay Rates.xlsx Financial Data 6/25/2018 2018-03- Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018 15 Report to MCSO of Finance and Management –
City County Vehicle Fleet.pdf
APC Final Report.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018
Avg Monthly Populations.xlsx Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018 BABL 2016 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding D Financial Data 6/25/2018
ata Collection.xlsx
Deputy Pay Scale 2015-2018.pdf Financial Data 6/25/2018
Dispatch Calls 2015-2017 State Report.pdf Office Operations Data 6/25/2018
Final Report – PSAP Salary Survey Sept 21 2015.pdf Financial Data 6/25/2018
Fleet Report 6-21-18.xls Office Operations Data 6/25/2018 Fully Executed CBA between the Marion County Sheri Contracts and 6/25/2018
ff and the Marion County Dispatchers and Cont.pdf Agreements Historical Breakdown of Charges for Inmates In Custo Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018
dy.xlsx
Inmate Counts and Information.xlsx Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018
MCSO Signed Agreement 2013-2014 & MOU.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018
Organization Charts 2011-2018.pdf Office Operations Data 6/25/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 127 –
Data received Subject Date
Wage Control Report 6-25-2018.xlsx Financial Data 6/25/2018 Leave Report 2014-2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 New Hire Report 2015-6-27-18 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing April 5 2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing April 25 2017 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing April 29 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing August 3 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing June 5 2017 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing June 22 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing June 22 2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing March 17 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing November 7 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Staffing September 14 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018 Classification Quarterly to 2015 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018 Jail Statistics 2017 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018 Jail Statistics 2016 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018 2018 Budget Information Financial Data 7/3/2018 2017 Budget Detail Financial Data 7/3/2018 2016 Budget Detail Financial Data 7/3/2018 2015 Budget Information Financial Data 7/3/2018 Jail Stats 2018 Year to Date Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018 Dispatch Calls 2015-2017 Vesta Report.pdf Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 Jail Sample Schedule 2018 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018 2015 Budget Presentation Financial Data 7/3/2018 2016 Budget Presentation Final 9-8-16 Financial Data 7/3/2018 MCSO 2018 FINAL Budget Presentation 9-5-17 REALLY Financial Data 7/3/2018 FINAL Arrest Information – BABL Data Request Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 2018 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 2017 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 2016 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 2015 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 Hired-Left in Same Year 2015-2018 Office Operations Data 7/3/2018 Former Employee Report with Start and End date Office Operations Data 7/6/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 128 –
Data received Subject Date Out of County Inmate 2016-2018 to KPMG Jail Operations Data 7/9/2018 2018 YTD Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2017 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2016 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2015 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2015 Attendance Totals Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2016Timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 2017timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/10/2018 07.13.2018 Inmate Count Jail Operations Data 7/13/2018 GRANT EQUIP 'A' 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 GRANT EQUIP 'B' 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2015 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2016 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 !! TRAINING INVENT 2015 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 !! TRAINING INVENT 2016 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 !! TRAINING INVENT 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 07.13.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018 2015 ATTENDANCE TOTALS.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 2015 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018 2015 Revenue Report.xlsx Financial Data 7/12/2018 2016 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018 2016TimeInfo.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 2017 CAP & CONT FA.PDF Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 2017 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018 2017timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 2018 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/12/2018 COMP 33 INVENT.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 COMP INVENT.PDF Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 FA OFM '17 CAP 2 – Copy.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 FA OFM '17 CAP 2.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 FA OFM '17 CAPITAL.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 FA OFM '17 CONTROLLED.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 129 –
Data received Subject Date FA OFM '17 RESEARCH.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018 GRANT 2017 A.PDF Financial Data 7/12/2018 GRANT 2017 B PG 1.pdf Financial Data 7/12/2018 GRANT 2017 B PG 2.pdf Financial Data 7/12/2018 Length of Stay Information Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018 Medical Information 2016 to May 2018.xlsx Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018 OFM Sheriff Overtime Analysis .xlsx Financial Data 7/12/2018 Salary Report 7-1-18.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018 SpecDep 2017 YTD.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/13/2018 SpecDep OT 2017 YTD.XLS Financial Data 7/13/2018 Warrants 2017 YTD.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/13/2018 2017 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/16/2018 2016 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/16/2018 General Ledger Reports 2015-2018 YTD.xlsx Financial Data 7/17/2018 07.16.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/16/2018 07.19.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/19/2018 Leave Date Roster Office Operations Data 7/26/2018 2017 Budget Introduced Financial Data 7/27/2018 Wagon Runs Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018 5-22-17 Jail Staffing to Sycamore_SA edits Financial Data 7/27/2018 Transportation Chargebacks 2017 Financial Data 7/27/2018 Jail Staffing Report July 18 2015 Rod Miller Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018 Smartview Proposal 6-13-18 Financial Data 7/27/2018 2015 Year End Report Office Operations Data 8/1/2018 2015 Year End Report Office Operations Data 8/1/2018 2017 JED Yearend Report1.1 Office Operations Data 8/1/2018 SOP-Process Office Operations Data 7/26/2018 SOP-process Clerk Office Operations Data 7/26/2018 SOP-Warrants Office Operations Data 7/26/2018 DAILY template Office Operations Data 7/26/2018 07.20.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/20/2018 07.23.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/23/2018 07.24.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/24/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 130 –
Data received Subject Date 07.25.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/25/2018 07.26.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/26/2018 07.27.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018 07.31.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/31/2018 08.01.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/1/2018 Criminal Division Information 8-2-18 Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
2017 Fleet Information.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
2017 January through June Fleet invoices.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
January through June 2016.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
January through June 2018 Fleet Invoices.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
July through December 2016 Fleet Information.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018 08.02.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/2/2018 MCSO Fleet Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 MCSD FLEET POLICY Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 08.03.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/3/2018 08.06.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/6/2018 08.07.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/7/2018 08.09.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/9/2018 08.13.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/13/2018 08.14.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/14/2018 08.15.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/15/2018 08.16.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/16/2018 08.17.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/17/2018 2015_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 2016_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 2017_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 Data Headers Office Operations Data 8/15/2018 08.20.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/20/2018 MCSO Bookings 2015-current Jail Operations Data 8/22/2018 Staffing 2008 2017 Office Operations Data 8/22/2018 Budget presentations 2010-2016 Office Operations Data 8/22/2018 ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF FEBRUARY 4, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 131 –
Data received Subject Date ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF MARCH 15, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF APRIL 29, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF MAY 16, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 VACANT SOTS AS OF JUNE 6 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 open slots july 21 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 open slots october 5 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 open slots oct 20 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 open slots nov 23 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 open slots jan 5 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots as of 02-10-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots as of 03-23-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots effect 04-24-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots effect 06-07-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots effect 8-2-17.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 VACANT SLOTS 08-29-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots for 11-07-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots for 01-04-2018.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 vacant slots as of 02-13-2018.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 Vacancies 4-9-2018.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 Vacancies 5-23-2018.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 VACANT REPORT 6-25-2018 Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 Vacant Positions 08-16-2018 Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 Trans_Runs_2015_YTD.csv Office Operations Data 10/31/2018 Updates to GL Information Financial Data 11/29/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 132 –
Ap pendix D: Interview and observation tracker
Meeting/observations Location Attendees Date MCSO soft kick-off meeting Conference call Hope Tribble 6/15/2018 Barbara Lawrence Col. Dezelan David Hortemiller Jail 1 Tour 40 South Alabama Street Col. Dezelan 6/26/2018 Barbara Lawrence Lieutenant Criminal Division Leadership 40 South Alabama Street L/C Forestal and 6/27/2018 Work Group leadership Judicial Enforcement City-County Building/200 E L/C Gigerich and 6/27/2018 Leadership Work Group Washington Street leadership MCSO Jail Intake and Arrestee 200 E Washington St Major Hamblen 6/27/2018 Processing Tour Eskenazi Health Tour 720 Eskenazi Avenue Chuck Ford 6/28/2018 Col. Dezelan MCSO Communications Communications Division Commander 7/10/2018 Division Tour Comms. Manager x 2 Arrestee Transportation City-County Building/200 E Deputy 7/10/2018 Observation Washington Street Jail Operations Work Group 40 South Alabama Street 2 x Sergeant 7/11/2018 5 x Deputy MCSO Leadership Team Work 40 South Alabama Street Col. Dezelan 7/12/2018 Group Kevin Murray Barbara Lawrence Jail Commander Meeting 40 South Alabama Street L/C Martin 7/12/2018 MCSO assessment kick-off City-County Building/200 E Hope Tribble 7/12/2018 meeting and 30 day update Washington Street Barry Logan Barbara Lawrence Col. Louis Dezelan Tim Moriarty Bart Brown Fady Qaddoura David Hortemiller Jail 1 observation 40 South Alabama Street Major Hamblen 7/24/2018 Sergeant
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 134 –
Meeting/observations Location Attendees Date Deputies Intake Processing Observation City-County Building/200 E Major Hamblen 7/25/2018 Washington Street Criminal Division Criminal 40 South Alabama Street Lieutenant 7/25/2018 Warrants Work Group 3 x Sergeant 4 x Deputy Criminal Division Sex Offender 40 South Alabama Street Lieutenant 7/25/2018 Work Group Sergeant 4 x Deputy Judicial Enforcement Civil City-County Building/200 E Sergeant x 2 7/26/2018 Warrants Work Group Washington Street Corporal x 2 MCSO assessment 60 day Conference call Barry Logan 8/16/2018 update Barbara Lawrence Col. Louis Dezelan Hope Tribble Tim Moriarty Fady Quaddoura
MCSO Assessment Final Report – 135 –
Contact us
Ian McPherson Principal, Justice & Security Advisory [email protected]
Bill Zizic Managing Director, Justice & Security Advisory [email protected]
Brendan Davis Director, Justice & Security Advisory [email protected]
www.kpmg.com
kpmg.com/socialmedia
Insert Disclaimers
© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. NDPPS 800056
The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.