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,