Planning and executing the daily busing activity is a complex undertaking, beginning each evening and ending the

In considering videoconferencing, the stakeholders only focused on costs. In addressing the costs/benefit question of videoconferencing, the stakeholder representatives on the PEMC gave only fleeting attention to the issues of safety, cost avoidance, and inmate condition. The PEMC ignored the legacy of prior and ongoing videoconferencing efforts in the County. Clearly the stakeholders were unable to come to an agreement about how to implement an arraignment program, including the oversight to calculate the payback periods for such an investment. In 2009 the CCJCC looked into the possibility of hiring a consulting firm and issued a Request for Proposal but the request failed to attract any bids.

Busing is expensive The estimated annual inmate transportation cost for 2016-2017 in the County is estimated to be $63 million. This cost estimate reflects labor, equipment (buses, vans), maintenance, repair, and fuel. The average cost to transport inmates is $89/trip or $29/mile. The estimated annual cost for one bus to move inmates from detention facilities to and from local courts is $1.6 million annually. The average number of inmates transported to local courts is 723,000 annually. The costs for transportation equipment and maintenance will continue to rise while the purchase cost of video systems will remain constant or decrease with relatively stable maintenance. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263

Busing is labor intensive, affecting costs The Sheriff’s Transportation Bureau has a staff of 288 people that manages inmate transportation from local holding and county detention facilities to courts in Los Angeles County. It is part of the Court Services Division with a staff of 2,032 and a budget of $306 million.

Busing is inefficient, affecting costs

Scheduling court appearances affects operating costs It takes a day to prepare and deliver inmates to court for a court hearing using expensive equipment and significant manpower, whereas a video arraignment would only take an hour to arrange at any time of the day using regular custody staff.

The Sheriff’s data collection and data management systems are substandard for the size and complexity of the organization. A number of times the CGJ requested standard operations reports that had to be created manually. These “one-of” reports take too much time and reflect a substandard data management system.

Busing of inmates invites violence not seen in secure detention and courthouse settings Holding cell incidents increased by 58% and courtroom incidents increased by 72% during the past five years. 8. “Use of Force” action is extremely rare but may be necessary if an inmate refuses to leave a cell. Occasionally, the action is preempted by using videoconferencing to conduct a court hearing. 9. “Keep-Aways” are bused with other inmates but segregated before, during transport and in court holding cells. A Sheriff’s survey conducted in two different months showed that 29% and 38% of inmates required special handling, including gang members, sexual orientation, high security inmates, mentally ill inmates, and violent inmates. This suggests that about one-third of the inmates may be problematic during transport. 10. “Medical No-Go’s” and physically handicapped inmates are bused to court. During a previous attempt to test the viability of video arraignments, “Medical No-Go’s” were identified as primary candidates for video arraignments. Ironically, “Medical No-Go” patients were one of the first categories of inmates to be deleted from the 2010-2011 pilot