Correctional Officer Overtime, Understaffing and Injury in the County Jail July 1, 2004

Sick hours declined in 2000-01 and have remained flat until the present, in inverse relationship to compensatory hours. In 2001-02 disability hours and the number of FTE absent because of disability injuries rose dramatically, peaking in 2002-03, and appear to be declining in 2003-04 (final figures were not available at the time this report was written). Disability injury costs exceeded the costs of hiring more correctional officers to reduce the overtime and injury rate. (See Addendum: “Is Overtime Cheaper?”). Questions and Uncertainties On May 5, 2004, the county Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers in an effort to reduce overtime hours and the injury rate. But are 10 enough? At best 10 more officers will reduce overall Detention Division overtime hours by about 17-18% percent. If this reduction helps to accelerate the decline in disability injuries to 1997 levels, another 8 to 10 officers would be available to work, which with the 10 new hires could reduce the number of Detention Division overtime hours by more than one-third if availability also goes up as a consequence of the reduction in overtime hours. But if the disability decline does not occur, more hires may be needed to significantly reduce overtime fatigue and the resulting injury rate. Another factor is the 15% turnover rate that generates 25 vacancies a year. To keep up with these is difficult and expensive, given the high standards and training required. Adding 10 more funded positions will make it more so. To what extent is the turnover rate a function of mandatory overtime? Many of the correctional officers interviewed said that reducing overtime hours could help to retain experienced officers who were leaving because of the overtime. If so, then recruitment and training costs could decline as a result of a reduction in overtime hours. Most correctional officers do not like mandatory overtime and want more free time and more control over their work schedules, but how much overtime pay are they willing to give up? Is the problem overtime or mandatory overtime? In the present system, correctional officers cannot say “no” to overtime when they are fatigued or burned out and should not be working. The system cannot adjust itself to the energy level and willingness of its employees. The National Institute of Justice recommends making overtime voluntary. To do that the Sheriff’s Department would have to survey its correctional officers to find out how much overtime they want to work, and balance the cost of overtime fatigue and injuries against the cost of hiring more officers. The Sheriff’s Department knows how many correctional officers it can hire without risk of overstaffing, and it can program as much or as little overtime as it wants its correctional officers to work. 5/13 July 1, 2004 Conclusions

Overtime pay is an important source of income for correctional officers, averaging 30 percent of total income.

Most overtime hours are mandatory for correctional officers assigned to fixed-post positions. Some correctional officers choose to work more than the minimum number of mandatory hours.

Excluding sergeants, management, and administrative positions, correctional officers each worked an average 464 hours of overtime in 2003.

In 2003, correctional officers assigned to fixed-post positions worked an average 20 hours of overtime per pay period.

Correctional officers sign up for overtime hours once a month beginning at a specified hour, first come first served. Correctional officers who do not sign up will have hours assigned to them. Correctional officers must wait on their own time for sign-up to begin. For some officers the wait period can be three or four hours.

Most correctional officers are willing to forgo some overtime in exchange for more free time and more control over their work schedules. A few correctional officers are willing to give up all overtime. 2/13 July 1, 2004

Most overtime hours are planned a year in advance. Since fiscal year 1997-98, between 70% and 90% of all Detention Division annual overtime hours were anticipated at the time the budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Beginning fiscal year 2000-01, 85% or more of overtime hours were budgeted.

Administrators know how many FTE to hire to reduce overtime to 1992-93 levels. In the county budget, correctional officer overtime hours are expressed as full-time equivalent positions. Beginning with fiscal year 1997-98, and assuming 80% availability, another 35 to 40 full-time positions could have been filled in the Detention Division to eliminate 70 percent of all Detention Division overtime hours without risk of overstaffing.

The number of inmates has increased at more than twice the rate of correctional officers. Since fiscal year 1992-93, the inmate population has increased 36 percent while the number of filled full-time equivalent positions in the Detention Division has increased nearly 14 percent. 2003-2004 Percent 1992-1993 thru April Increase ADP 791 1079 36.4% FTE 213 242 13.6%

In the last few years, overall correctional officer availability to work has averaged about 80.3%. Out of a total 2,088 possible annual work hours, correctional officers have on average worked 1,677 hours. But availability varies by year and by worksite. For example, as of March 25, 2004 MADF correctional officer availability was only 75%.

The average annual turnover rate for correctional officers working fixed-post positions is 15% a year, or about 26.5 positions. About one-third of these were officers out on disability who were not expected to return to work.

If the 1992-93 ratio of correctional officers to inmates had been applied in 2002-03, there would have been 277 correctional officers employed, 34 more than actually filled. At 80% availability, 34 more officers would have reduced all Detention Division overtime hours by 54%. If dedicated solely to fixed-post position overtime, 34 FTE would have reduced fixed-post overtime by at least 70%.

Overtime hours per FTE increased sharply in 1998 and have remained high to the present. The primary cause in 1998 was the opening of the new jail wing at the Main Adult Detention Facility and insufficient filled positions

In recent years as the use of compensatory time has gone up, sick time has come down in proportion, with the resulting time off remaining about the same.

Historically overtime hours created by absences due to disability injuries and sick leave have tended to rise and fall together, suggesting that illness and injuries share the same causes. In 2000-01 and 2002-03, disability hours rose while sick hours remained flat. Projected hours for 2003-04 show both declining. 3/13 July 1, 2004

Expressed as full-time equivalent positions, overtime hours due to disability injuries were highest in fiscal year 2002-03. They are expected to decline slightly in fiscal year 2003-04, but still remain at a historic high.

In the first year, the added cost of employing ten new correctional officers, considering the cost of equipment and training, and adjusting for the overtime saved by their addition to the workforce, is estimated at $357,483, or $35,748 per individual officer. The additional second year cost at fiscal year 2004-05 rates is estimated at $51,739 for ten officers, or $5,174 per individual officer.

When disability injury costs are not considered, it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire more permanent correctional officers. The overtime hourly rate is less than the actual salary rate when availability is considered, and with overtime there is no additional training cost. (See sidebar)

When disability costs are considered, it is often cost effective to hire more permanent correctional officers than to fill positions with overtime hours.

In the last five fiscal years ending June 30, 2002, the total incurred disability cost for correctional officers in Sonoma County was $7,300,000, twice the cost incurred by law enforcement and the highest of any job classification in Sonoma County. The highest costs were incurred in 1998-99, the year of highest overtime per FTE.

Recently disability absences have increased in proportion to all overtime hours.

The Main Adult Detention Facility is a hard-surfaced environment with concrete floors and steel staircases. The injury rate in this environment is predictably higher than the rate in an environment with wooden floors and rug-covered staircases.

The jail is a closed environment housing hundreds of people, some of whom are sick. Correctional officers in this environment are likely to be sick more often than people working in more open environments.

On May 5, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers. But even with 10 additional officers, the jail is still understaffed. At 80.3% availability, 10 are not likely to reduce all Detention Division overtime hours by more than 16-17%, or fixed-post overtime hours by more than 19-20%.

In a nation-wide study of correctional officer stress, the National Institute of Justice reports that “stress is widespread and, in many cases, severe—and possibly increasing—among correctional officers.” (cid:131) Primary causes are “rotating work shifts, lack of opportunity for career advancement, frustration with supervisors’ leadership styles and demands, understaffing, and mandatory overtime.” (cid:131) Lowering stress will “reduce excessive sick leave as a means of coping with stress on the job,…the need to pay overtime to cover for officers on sick leave or who quit because of work-related stress, reduce the time officers need off after a critical incident before returning to work, reduce fees paid into the retirement fund because of fewer stress-related early retirements, improve officer performance through higher staff morale, and increase institutional safety through fewer 4/13 July 1, 2004 inexperienced officers on duty and fewer officer distractions with work-related and personal stresses.” (cid:131) Among the recommendations to reduce organizational stress, the report includes making overtime voluntary and improving the shift schedule to a 3-12 shift arrangement (already in use in the Sonoma County Jails) or “5 days on, 7 days off” to create a “mini-vacation every other week.” (Finn, 2000) Summary of Findings In 1997-98 the Sheriff’s Department began to accurately estimate overtime hours a year in advance and to build the costs into its budget. This was also the year when the new jail wing opened, creating more unfilled fixed-post positions and a 30 percent increase in overtime hours per FTE. The ratio of overtime hours to FTE has remained approximately at 1998 levels to the present, saving the county the cost of filling and maintaining a possible 35-40 more positions and increasing correctional officer overtime pay to 30 percent of total income. Disability hours and injury costs increased in 1998-99, leveled off in 1999-00, and declined somewhat in 2000- 01. Sick hours declined in 2000-01 and have remained flat until the present, in inverse relationship to compensatory hours. In 2001-02 disability hours and the number of FTE absent because of disability injuries rose dramatically, peaking in 2002-03, and appear to be declining in 2003-04 (final figures were not available at the time this report was written). Disability injury costs exceeded the costs of hiring more correctional officers to reduce the overtime and injury rate. (See Addendum: “Is Overtime Cheaper?”). Questions and Uncertainties On May 5, 2004, the county Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers in an effort to reduce overtime hours and the injury rate. But are 10 enough? At best 10 more officers will reduce overall Detention Division overtime hours by about 17-18% percent. If this reduction helps to accelerate the decline in disability injuries to 1997 levels, another 8 to 10 officers would be available to work, which with the 10 new hires could reduce the number of Detention Division overtime hours by more than one-third if availability also goes up as a consequence of the reduction in overtime hours. But if the disability decline does not occur, more hires may be needed to significantly reduce overtime fatigue and the resulting injury rate. Another factor is the 15% turnover rate that generates 25 vacancies a year. To keep up with these is difficult and expensive, given the high standards and training required. Adding 10 more funded positions will make it more so. To what extent is the turnover rate a function of mandatory overtime? Many of the correctional officers interviewed said that reducing overtime hours could help to retain experienced officers who were leaving because of the overtime. If so, then recruitment and training costs could decline as a result of a reduction in overtime hours. Most correctional officers do not like mandatory overtime and want more free time and more control over their work schedules, but how much overtime pay are they willing to give up? Is the problem overtime or mandatory overtime? In the present system, correctional officers cannot say “no” to overtime when they are fatigued or burned out and should not be working. The system cannot adjust itself to the energy level and willingness of its employees. The National Institute of Justice recommends making overtime voluntary. To do that the Sheriff’s Department would have to survey its correctional officers to find out how much overtime they want to work, and balance the cost of overtime fatigue and injuries against the cost of hiring more officers. The Sheriff’s Department knows how many correctional officers it can hire without risk of overstaffing, and it can program as much or as little overtime as it wants its correctional officers to work. 5/13 July 1, 2004 Conclusions 1. The jail is understaffed even with the addition of 10 new hires. 2. Most correctional officers work too many overtime hours. 3. Excessive overtime generates a vicious cycle of fatigue, illness, injury, and more overtime. 4. Correctional officers have the highest disability injury costs of any job classification in Sonoma County. 5. When the cost of disability injuries is considered, it is more cost effective to employ more correctional officers than to employ high levels of mandatory overtime. 6. The Sheriff’s Department could hire another 20 correctional officers without risk of overstaffing.