Ok Doc-prison and Jail Staffing-1981
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
PLANNING AND EVALUATING PRISON AND JAIL STAFFING VOLUME I F. WARREN BENTON, PH.D. PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1975-1979 OCTOBER 1981 This project was supported by Grant Number CB-3 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ABSTRACT Planning and Evaluating Prison and Jail Staffing has three major purposes. The first is to identify methods of analysis and evaluation of staffing levels. These include task analysis, motion and time study, productivity auditing, outcome analysis, process analysis, and comparative analysis. A specific method is called the Multiple Methods Approach because several presented, staff evaluation techniques are independently applied. The report that an necessary forms so instructions. and provides institutional manager may apply this approach. The second purpose is to describe alternative methods of organizational structure and shift or roster management for prisons and jails. Concepts presented include traditional, project, and matrix organizational unit management, as well as specific approaches to structures, staffing housing units. The third purpose is to document current jails and staff levels of twenty institutions representing and large and small. The prisons which are both new and old, staffing patterns are presented and compared within the following management, support business administration, categories: operations, programs and services, medical and treatment, control unit supervision, internal activity points, perimeter security, and yard, and external positions. In addition, summary tables are presented illustrating rates of employment per hundred prisoners including a survey of 162 prisons. from several other studies, The monograph is divided into two volumes. The first contains all of the material except for the specific staffing patterns themselves. These have been placed in the second volume. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. INTRODUCTION B. BACKGROUND 1 2 II. DETERMINING AND EVALUATING STAFF REQUIREMENTS 5 A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES B. METHODS OF STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS 5 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Task analysis Motion and time study Productivity auditing Outcome analysis Process analysis Comparative analysis c. SUMMARY 20 III. ORGANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL POSTS AND POSITIONS A. INTRODUCTION B. HIERARCHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Traditional model Project model Matrix model Functional decentralization Functional hierarchy Unit management Team model Shift model C. SHIFT PATTERNS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 12 13 14 14 17 23 23 23 23 25 25 27 28 28 28 28 29 Continuity: posts and positions Calculation of coverage factors Shift cycles Shift patterns Productivity improvement factors V 29 30 35 36 39 IV. AN EXAMINATION OF SPECIFIC STAFFING ISSUES A. INTRODUCTION B. REVIEW OF STAFFING LEVELS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Administration Business management Support operations Programs and Services Medical and treatment Control points Perimeter security Unit supervision Internal activity and yard External and other Total positions C. ADDITIONAL TABLES 43 45 45 47 49 50 53 55 56 57 60 61 62 65 V. IMPLEMENTATION A. B. C. D. E. 43 73 INTRODUCTION PLANNING AND EVALUATING STAFF LEVELS EXAMPLE APPLICATION TO POSTS FINAL OBSERVATIONS VI. APPENDIX 73 74 76 87 88 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY BLANK TASK ANALYSIS FORMS vi CHARTER ONE INTRODUCTION A. INTRODUCTION The most important and most expensive resource in a prison or jail is its staff. Over one-half of an institutional budget usually is spent for employee salaries and benefits. Thus, a proper staffing pattern is a necessary condition for the achievement of most other institutional objectives, and the evaluation of staff deployment is the best approach to achieving cost savings or productivity improvements. The goal of this manual is to assist managers in the development and evaluation of prison and jail staffing patterns. The material in this manual should aid managers as they grapple with the basic but difficult questions of "HOW many staff members are needed?", or"What is the best way to organize the workforce?", or "How can we tell if our staffing pattern is effective?" Volume I discusses methods for determining proper staff levels and organizational structures, and presents information based upon staffing patterns currently in use. For this project, information on staffing was obtained from twenty jails and prisons, as well as from reports developed in previous projects by other organizations. Summaries of the staffing patterns are presented in Volume I, and specific and detailed descriptions are presented in Volume II. Chapter Two reviews methods of determining the appropriate numbers of employees to devote to a task. Methods such as task analysis and comparison are described with reference to specific examples. After reading the chapter, the reader should understand the methods and procedures used for relatively simple evaluations, and should be equipped to make better decisions concerning more difficult problems of staffing. Chapter Three reviews the organization of workers. Discussed are methods of organizing the workforce, both in terms of hierarchical structure, or chain of command, as well as in terms of shifts so that the proper levels of employees are on duty at all times. Chapter Four reviews the staffing information from the institutions included in the project, according to specific functional categories such as administration, unit supervision, or control points. This allows for an examination of factors which are uniquely important to specific areas of institutional operation. Special attention is placed upon Unit Supervision staffing or staffing for housing units, because housing areas use between one-fifth to one-third of all positions in prisons. Chapter Five provides a step-by-step example of a staffing analysis, and includes specific forms and procedures to enable a manager to complete such an analysis. 1 Questions about staffing levels, as discussed in the manual, occur during the planning of new facilities or generally programs, during budget proposal or justification processes, or during the ongoing administration of a budget when cuts or reallocations must be made. At such times, managers must justify levels of staffing, or suffer cutbacks in funding, or fail to receive even initial funding for a new project. This monograph is designed to assist managers as they face difficult budget situations and a variety of other staff management conditions. individuals may use the monograph in different ways Thus, depending upon their situation. The following are some suggested ways for applying the material: A deputy warden, personnel manager, or security chief might use it as a guide to evaluating the need for a change in the In this case the level of staffing in a particular program. evaluation methods described in Chapters Two and Five would be particularly relevent. The planner or administrative assistant who is developing a new program or institution might refer to Chapter Three on and to the specific staffing the organization of staff, If the level of planning patterns presented in Volume II. were very specific, to the point of defining specific the methodology in Chapter Five would numbers of positions, be important. A trainer conducting a training session for middle managers might use the entire monograph as a resource for examples requesting manager A program and content material. additional staff for a new or existing project might be requested by the Warden to conduct an evaluation process such as that in Chapter Five to justify this budget request. correctional managers have Over the last several decades, emphasis was In the 1960's, been challenged in various ways. placed upon the development of programs and services to fulfill In the 1970's, the goals of resocialization or rehabilitation. the problems of rapid population growth called for rapid expansion of correctional systems. In the 1980's, it appears that Budget cuts, productivity improvement may be the challenge. externally imposed standards, and the aspirations of correctional professionals to improve services will call for the careful examination of institutional operations. Since it is unlikely that large infusions of new funds will come fro many external administrators will be required to find resources from sources, within. BACKGROUND complexity of a prison staffing pattern and the The difficulty of effective staff management generally escapes those outside of corrections. The citizen or legislator not yet exposed to prison management may view a correctional institution as if it and as if its like a bank or a store, operated for one shift, 2 only task were confinement security. There are several aspects of a correctional institution staffing pattern which make it both unlike these free-world institutions and very difficult to manage. First, a correctional institution must support the complete spectrum of the activities of a small city. There are systems for food service, utilities, medical care, law enforcement, industry, and most other aspects of life in the free world. Each of these responsibilities must be implemented by the staff in such a way that the institution functions as a whole. As a result, the positions and shift patterns of many different industries and professions must be integrated. It is difficult to manage a restaurant, or a medical clinic, or a factory, or a counseling service. The challenge of a correctional institution staffing pattern is to develop a capacity to provide all of these services as parts of one organization. Second, a correctional institution must operate on a continuous basis. Many posts and positions must be staffed around the clock. In an insurance company, for example, an employee is hired to do a particular job. If he or she must miss work one day, the workload usually is deferred until the employee returns. In a correctional institution, if a correctional officer must miss work, because of illness, training obligations, unauthorized absence, or other factors, the post generally must be filled, or an active adjustment must be made in some other officer's duties. The task of supervising prisoners cannot be deferred until the officer returns. In order to provide for continuous operation of these types of activities, the shift cycles and patterns of a correctional institution must be complex. Third, the population of a prison presents obvious unique challenges. While the staff of a prison is providing supervision and basic services, the prison population has a continuous opportunity to plan dangerous and ingenious activities such as escapes, disruptions, covert organizations, and acquisition of contraband. In response, the staffing pattern of a prison must work consistently and thoroughly, and must successfully integrate security functions with many other skilled activities and professions. As a result, there is less opportunity for informal and spontaneous approaches to work problems. The shift patterns of the food service staff must be coordinated with those of the industry, education, medical, security, and administrative staff. In the free world, a restaurant staff would not have to consider such factors. Finally, the employees of a correctional institution are held to a relatively high standard of performance because of the inherent danger to themselves and to the public should errors occur allowing an escape or major incident. Further standards are imposed externally by the courts, inspection agencies, and accreditation processes. As a result, regardless of the number of employees or the size of budget available, a prison staffing pattern must be stretched, compressed, extended, and creatively 3 managed to accomplish the requirement is perhaps and managing evaluating, the greatest challenge of basic responsibilitiesof a the greatest challenge in a prison staffing pattern, correctional administration 4 prison. This developing, and perhaps in general. CHAPTER TWO DETERMINING AND EVALUATING STAFF REQUIREMENTS A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES The most basic issue in developing a new staffing pattern, or in evaluating an existing one, is the determination of whether a post or position is needed at all. Coverage factors, shift cycles and patterns, and organizational structures all are important final determinants of the total level of staff required. However, the first and most important determinant is the level of need for a post or position in the first place. The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the basic approaches to such an evaluation. The chapter is conceptual, establishing the methodoligical and theoretical foundations for the step-by-step approach presented in Chapter Five. There are several important concepts which structure the process of determining basic needs: local variation, productivity, and diminishing returns. Each of these factors influences the ultimate determination of the appropriate level of employees for a given function. Local variation: It is important to recognize that there are no simple and final answers. Each prison and prison system operates under procedures which vary greatly. As a result, institutions which appear to be similar can have markedly contrasting populations and functions. Terms which have apparent uniformity of definition, such as "medium security", "intake process", "cellhouse shakedown", or "classification hearing", generally describe processes which vary from system to system and prison to prison. For example, a shakedown, or search for contraband, in a cellhouse can include the inspection of all cells on a frequent basis, or a few cells on a random basis. The inspection itself can involve a brief examination of the cell by one officer, or an intensive item-by-item search, complicated by the presence of the prisoner exercising numerous procedural rights. Therefore, the determination of a proper staffing level of an institution generally has to respond at some point to the actual workload requirements of the institution, based upon the responsibilities and mission of the institution. Productivity: This is a term which has been used frequently during recent years, but often is not used with precise definition. According to Webster's dictionary, it refers to "the quality or state of yielding or furnishing results". As a management concept, productivity refers to the relation between "inputs", or resources such as time, supplies, or money, and "outputs", such as products, or work tasks completed. Productivity improvement occurs when inputs into a work process 'are reduced, or the outputs of the process are increased. Generally, productivity is measured by dividing outputs by inputs. A simple example from a correctional institution involves 5 automation of some gates which were previously operated manually. six gates might be operated by six Prior to the consolidation, officers at any one time. The productivity index would be six divided by six, or one. After consolidation and automation of the gates, the six gates could be operated by three officers. The new index would be six divided by three, or two. This is a 100% increase in productivity. The are many actual examples of productivity improvements throughout the field of corrections today. The following is a list of some common approaches to productivity improvement: Introduction systems ; of technology computer to prison record Replacement of many small surveillance towers with one or two high, advanced design towers: or even the elimination of towers altogether; Automation, substituting sensing devices; machines for labor, including Negotiation of improved work practices through collective bargaining, eliminating inefficient procedures in return for employee benefits: Relocation of employees and prisoners adjacent to one another through unit management and advanced prison design reducing wasted time moving prisoners from one concepts, location to another: Training employees to accomplish work tasks with a lower so that the number of correctly completed level of error, tasks per employee is increased; Review and evaluation of outdated forms and procedures eliminate unnecessary or duplicative work tasks. to three types of approaches to there are Generally, improvement. The first is to simply increase productivity workload levels without hiring additional staff or increasing this can result in productivity supply budgets. Up to a point, especially if many inefficient or unnecessary improvements, practices exist prior to the workload increase. This occurred nationally when the massive population increases occurred in the latter half of the 1970's. The problem with this approach is that or lose employees can become overworked and quit their jobs, genuine productivity Thus, morale and do poor quality work. improvements do not always occur. Often, work standards are simply reduced, so that a classification interview, for example, becomes a brief and mechanical conversation, or the physical structure of a facility becomes overused. A better type of productivity improvement is to evaluate or reorganize work tasks, so that employees can complete them more and tasks of an procedures, efficiently. As the goals, 6 methods must be continually institution change over time, evaluated to reduce duplicative or unnecessary tasks. In a prison which has operated in a stable and traditional manner for a relatively long time, many such procedures or traditions will Institutions subject to rapid change in recent years will exist. usually the result of new also have many such procedures, Productivity procedures duplicating older ones to some extent. improvements resulting from this type of streamlining process tend to improve the quality of work production and the morale of employees. Another type of productivity improvement results from the introduction of new technology into work processes. Simple electric examples include the substitution of self-correcting typewriters for manual ones, or word processors for typewriters. More complex and expensive examples include the use of new devices such as computers in record processing, or the use of electronic movement sensing devices, or improved communication systems. Finally, many new facilities incorporate materials which increase visibility, reduce maintenance costs, require lower levels of staffing, or reduce energy consumption. A final and important note about productivity is that it must not become an end in itself. The history of corrections is littered with examples of institutions or programs which were planned with the reduction of operating costs as the primary objective. Examples include the famous panopticon cellhouses at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Stateville, designed in a circular fashion to permit one officer to observe hundreds of cells at once, but without any capacity to respond to what he sees. Other examples include the original plans for many prison farms, characterized by unrealistically low staffing levels, and Productivity involves doing what goals of self-sufficiency. but doing it in an efficient manner. needs to be done, Productivity is not an excuse for not doing important and necessary tasks. Diminishing returns: Many correctional administrators have come to realize that the addition of employees to solve a problem There are sometimes can create more problems than it solves. several reasons for this. First, the addition of employees creates unanticipated increases in workloads throughout an institution and a system. Most of the increases occur in five categories: training, and supervision, personnel management, fiscal management, building maintenance and development. In a typical architectural for each day of direct law firm, or consulting firm, firm, service to a client by an employee, there are additional expenses equal to one or two days salary of the employee, generally associated with administrative overhead, provision of space, and other requirements. While a prison can operate more efficiently the than this because of the relative stability of its workload, substantial simply adding employees can have process of unanticipated effects. 7 an increase in the number of employees working on a Second, given problem, or in a defined area, increases the potential for If five interpersonal and communication problems geometrically. people work on a problem, there are thirteen separate one-to-one relationships which must be reasonably satisfactory. There has to be general agreement as to the role or jobs of each person, antagonisms must be smoothed over, and agreement has to be If that staff is achieved sometimes when disputes arise. the number of and therefore doubled, increased to ten, relationships is increased to over 40, which practically triples an interpersonal problems. To the extent that potential and most infighting, organization internal staff has increasing the staff will organizations have some of this, greatly increase the problems. Third, if the nature of the work to be done is general, such as the supervision of a cellhouse, as opposed to piecemeal, such an additional factor must be considered. A as sorting mail, series of fixed increment additions to resources achieves successively lower levels of relative improvement in resource when improvement is measured as a percent of the inputs, for example, a resources of the previous period. Consider, cellhouse of 100 prisoners, and a day-shift staff of four officers. This is a ratio of one officer for every twenty-five prisoners. the If the number of officers is increased by four, ratio is reduced to 1:12.5. A 100% increase in staff yielded a 50% reduction in the ratio. Assume that this lead to a satisfactory improvement in staff and prisoner morale, and in basic conditions; so that the legislature decides to increase the staff by four again. This time, this is a 50% increase in staff even though the absolute increase in employees and related staff is the same as before. The reduction in the ratio of officers to prisoners is reduced by 34% rather than 50%. When one also considers that the potential for interpersonal conflict has been increased by almost about 1100% over two years (from 6 relationships to 661), it is conceivable that the institutional staff may have begun to wonder why the 200% increase in staff has not yielded a 200% improvement in day to day operations of the cellhouse. B. METHODS OF STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS The determination of appropriate staffing levels has been a central concern of managers since long before the development of the production line. There are several basic approaches which have been employed and tested for many years, most often in the private sector. These approaches have also been employed within the field of corrections, although not so universally. Each of from these methods will be reviewed along with examples correctional institutions. 1. Task Analysis Task analysis is a relatively simple and direct 8 method to determine the appropriate level of staff for any stable and repetitious work activity. It is commonly employed in civil service systems to identify the type and number of employees required for a given function in an agency or unit. The process of task analysis begins with the identification and measurement of the work to be done. The task auditor analyses the job, breaking it down into its component parts. For a records clerk may have to retrieve files, file files, example, and place material in files. Each of these tasks occurs at a certain rate on a typical day, perhaps 200 retrievals, 200 filings, and 400 placements of materials into files. This defines in a quantified manner the work to be done. Next, the task auditor conducts an observation of the performance of one or more clerks in the performance of this work. The auditor determines, through repeated measures of tasks, the typical amount of time required to complete each task, and also the amount of time devoted to other activities, such as rest, personal activities, conversations with supervisors or other employees, and other activities. Finally, the auditor multiplies the number of each type of task to be done by the typical time periods required to complete them, and adds an appropriate amount of time for other activities. In the above example, filings and retrievals might take two minutes each, and placements might take three minutes. Thus, the total time per day for direct tasks would be 2000 minutes, or 33.3 hours. The auditor might have found that a typical records clerk spent 40 minutes per hour on these tasks, and, based upon several recommendations, could spend 50 minutes per hour, a total of 40 employee-hours per day are required. On this basis, five file clerks would be needed. A more complex study would include an analysis of peak time periods, as well a supervision requirements and shift pattern alternatives. A task analysis is a simple and logical approach to a workload which is stable and which consists of a series of repeated tasks. It has two basic flaws, however. First, it does not work well for more generalized tasks, a type which frequently occur in prisons. For example, a correctional officer in a tower could theoretically be able to observe a certain distance, and over a certain scope of area. The typical tower may not fully use this capacity, due to design features of an institution or other factors. A task analysis could not propose many practical solutions to this problem. Another example is a team of officers supervising a dining area. Certain tasks could be measured discretely, but the most important aspect of the job of those officers, deterring incidents and disturbances, cannot be measured in the same manner as filing a file. The irony is that, to the extent that the need for the officers can be measured, such as in the numbers of incidents, more officers are probably needed. Nevertheless, task analysis can determine relative levels of post efficiency. Assume, for example, that a post must be open 16 hours per day. A post efficiency rating of 50% would mean that half of the time that the post was open the officer had a task to 9 complete which was described in the post orders. The other half of the time the officer was waiting, or simply observing areas in a general way. In such a circumstance, additional duties could be assigned to that post without requiring additional officers or reducing the availability of the post in emergencies. The second problem with task analysis is that the methodology tends to underestimate the amount of staff required to do a job. It tends to assume that optimal levels of worker and this is not typically the performance can be generalized, case. Measures are sometimes optimistic because the worker, when audited, attempts to make a favorable impression on the auditor. Also, to the extent that the worker controls the pace of the work, optimistic proposals to reduce non-task activities tend to not succeed. The following is an example of a task analysis conducted within a correctional agency. It illustrates some of the steps involved in the process. There is also another example in Chapter Five which uses forms designed for use by a correctional manager in a prison or jail setting. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections conducted a task analysis based evaluation of the accounting and restitution units at the administrative offices. (Joanie Callison & Gary Parsons: Accounting and Restitution Evaluation (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma City, 1978). The accounting unit was responsible for pre-auditing all vouchers and claims from all units within the entire department prior to forwarding them to the State Budget Office and Treasury for payment. It was also responsible for the coordination of budget development, the conduct of internal audits within the Department, and the bookeeping for the central administrative offices. The Restitution unit for the was responsible processing of restitution and probation fee payments from probationers across the state. Such payments are made by mail. The methodology of the project included the following: 1)flow charting of the major work flows, 2)calculation of volumes of workload for major activities, 3) daily activity audits on employees within the unit, job and 4) calculation of a descriptive index for each employee, which includes measures of satisfaction with the work. The task analysis of the Restitution unit provides an example of the process. The overall work of the unit was defined through flow charting, yielding a list of the tasks which, taken as a whole, constitute the workload of the unit. The frequency of these tasks was calculated over a representative time period, and the workload for a representative week was determined. Then, by conducting daily activity audits on the employees in the unit, and by timing the amount of time needed to complete tasks, an allowance of time per task was identified. The following is a summary of the workload of the unit. 10 TABLE II-l: RESTITUTION WORKLOAD SUMMARY TASK receipts post ledgers treasury deposits payment checks payment letters default letters new accounts restitution accts rest. defaults phone calls log checks sorting & filing NUMBER MINUTES TOTAL 752 805 11 155 5 37 63 5 165 170 155 1 1 60 2 5 1 2 40 5 4 2 752 805 660 310 25 37 126 200 825 510 310 1260 5820 97 TOTAL TOTAL HOURS seven persons were employed to complete In this unit, and yet there was a hours per week of work, approximately 97 substantial backlog of work in the unit and additional staff had been requested. In fact, within the last twelve months, several employees had been authorized to achieve the staff of seven, but production had not increased. Through the analysis of workflow and the job description indices, the project team identified supervision and task organization as the major reasons for the lack of production. Responsibility for tasks was not clearly assigned, and the work process was not organized efficiently. For there was little specialization of functions, so that example, and clerk typists high level employees were sorting mail, performed an amount of typing which was not greater than that performed by higher level employees. The audit recommended that the staff in the unit be reduced from seven to six, and that the remaining staff be by one, organized into two teams of an account clerk and a typist, with both teams supervised by an accountant who would also supervise a typist clerk. The overall supervisor for both units was also replaced. the backlog within Once this reorganization was completed, the unit was relieved, and the six employees absorbed a rapidly increasing workload thereafter. This task analysis provides an example of the type of work situation for which task analysis is appropriate. W o r k l o a d consists of a quantifiable and repetitive series of tasks, permitting the reasonably precise determination of staff needed. It should be noted, however, that even though the analysis showed that there were 97 hours of work to be done per week, which six employees could presumably be accomplished by 2.5 employees, First, were authorized. This was done for several reasons. vacations, sick leave, training, and other types of leave must be 11 this considered. As will be illustrated in the next chapter, generally results in a reduction in actual work production per 3.0 to 3.5 employees employee by about 20 to 30 percent. Thus, would actually be needed to generate 2.5 employees on duty on any task analysis as a as was discussed above, given day. Second, process tends to underestimate the time necessary to complete work, because of unpredictable factors. Third, a supervisor was required, and a span of control of five is appropriate for this the workload was projected to increase type of work. Also, rapidly because the program was popular with the judges and district attorneys. In Chapter Five, a specific process will be which builds upon this example. 2. illustrated MOTION AND TIME STUDY Motion and time study (M&TS) is a more refined version of task analysis. Some authors, in fact, consider task analysis to be a short and simplistic version of motion and time study. There are several good books on M&TS: Marvin E. Mundel, Motion and Time Study: Improving Productivity, (Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall, Ralph M. 1966). Barnes, Motion and Time- Study, - (New York, Wiley, Barnes defines MT&S as follows: Motion and time study is the systematic study of work systems with the purposes of (1) developing the preferred system and method--usually the one with the lowest cost: (2) standardizing this system and method; (3) determining the time required by a qualified and properly trained person working at a normal pace to do a specific task or operation; and (4) assisting in training the worker in the preferred method. (Pg. 4) MT&S evolved historically from the "Scientific Management" movement which existed around the turn of the century. The effort focused primarily on manufacturing processes, attempting to evolve the most efficient production methods for industries. In Barnes book, very detailed instructions are provided for developing efficient procedures, including the following: Methods to arrange production lines and work areas so as to reduce movement to a minimum. Methods to analyse human and machine operations so as to reduce inefficient effort, including an extensive analysis, as an example, of the proper method of using a floor mop. Methods of studying motions, including filming of processes. 12 Principles for motion economy as related to the use of the human body, such as approaches to using both hands at once on a task. Methods to timing processes, and for developing appropriate time allowances for the steps in a task. Sources of predetermined time-motion data. It should be apparent that MT&S is a highly developed technology. It requires trained personnel to conduct studies, and therefore can be time consuming and expensive. Such a highly refined effort is beneficial when a limited number of tasks are to be continually employed in a work process, especially when expensive machinery is to be developed and purchased. When tasks change often, or then a job consists of many different tasks, then the effort of MT&S may not pay off. In corrections, there are few jobs which involve the repetitive completion of a few limited tasks. Generally, these can be found in two general areas: control stations which operate gates, communication systems, or observe surveillance equipment, or in support functions such as accounting offices or prison industries. As a rough guide, the administrator might look for jobs which are limited to about ten specific tasks which are completed each at least ten times per hour. T h u s , a n o f f i c e r operating several gates might meet this guide, while an officer conducting a cellhouse inspection might not. 3. PRODUCTIVITY AUDITING Productivity auditing is much like task analysis. It differs in two respects. First, the unit of analysis is the productivity index, which is a broader and more flexible measure of the non-labor resources required to complete a task including resources, allowing comparisons between alternative approaches, including automation. Second, it attempts to achieve improvements in productivity, whereas the methodology of task analysis must be "stretched" by a creative auditor to accomplish this. A productivity audit of the record system used above as an example would start with the measurement and calculation of a number of indices, such as the numbers of various types of file translating the perhaps completed per day, transactions transactions into a time unit or point system. For example, the filings might be worth two points each, and the placements of records into files three points each. On a typical day, the unit Nonwould do 2000 points of work, or 400 points per employee. task time would constitute 2.66 hours per day per employee, or the productivity audit would have covered much the same area. however, by continue, The productivity audit would developing additional measures which would incorporate operating expenses and non-labor resources. it would explore a Then, variety of methods to improve productivity, including automation. 13 main difference between the productivity audit (PA) Thus, the and the task analysis (TA) is that the TA asks "HOW many employees are needed to get this job completed?", whereas the PA asks "How can this work been done more efficiently?". PA and TA can be integrated into a single process. Any productivity improvement will be accomplished in one of three ways: 1) methods will be improved, reducing the time required to complete a task; or 2) an overall process will be redefined, eliminating or reducing the number of tasks to complete a job, or 3) a new task will be substituted for one or more old ones, streamlining a process. Each of these approaches can be expressed in a task analysis format as a number of tasks each requiring a certain amount of time to complete. A productivity audit would seek to show that one approach was more efficient than another, and that the cost of the equipment or new methods involved would be recouped by the greater efficiency of the revised method. This is illustrated more completely in Chapter Five. 4. OUTCOME ANALYSIS Outcome analysis infers the need for staff on the basis of results and other external measures. This approach would suggest, for example, that a prison with many incidents, much overtime, and poor staff morale, is more likely to need added staff than a prison which appears to be running smoothly. In the records system example, outcome analysis would look to complaints from employees within the unit, or from those who are served by the unit. If there were few complaints, then it would be assumed that it was staffed properly. The deficiencies of this approach are very clear. Such an approach tends to reward incompetence, and directs resources at problems without clear evidence that a lack of resources is the precise problem which needs remedy. The problem may be in the management' of the unit. Also, it offers no methodology to identify a unit which might have too much staff. Conceivably a unit which is running smoothly could be operated with a lower level of staffing without a sacrifice in performance. There are distinct advantages, however. First, outcome analysis is a more efficient method than TA or PA in terms of the cost to implement the monitoring system. While TA and PA require an auditing team, outcome analysis is a generally passive methodology, which requires only waiting for problems to be articulated by others. This is the most typical method of staff analysis in today in corrections. use 5. PROCESS ANALYSIS Process analysis attempts to compare staffing levels to prescriptive standards. Sometimes such standards are found in court orders. A simple example is a caseload ratio. One might 14 adopt a standard of 35 cases per counselor in an institution. The actual caseloads of counselors. could be compared to this and if the caseloads are larger than 35, then standard, additional counselors may be needed. This approach is very simple, and also very efficient to apply because compliance can be The key to the ascertained easily and inexpensively. effectiveness of this method is the specificity and validity of the standard. The problem with this approach is that such standards are difficult to draft in a manner which respects the differences between types of situations, programs, and institutions. As a result, very few quantified standards exist which attempt to define an adequate staffing pattern. In the Fourth Chapter, some of these will be reviewed and discussed. American Correctional Association Commission on The here. Accreditation Standards deserve particular attention Generally, these standards describe levels of performance, but not levels of staffing other than in a few instances. A specific institution might apply these standards to itself and identify areas of staff deficiency. However, generally some other type of staff analysis process must be applied to translate the standard and the institutional situation into a quantified recommendation. This is very reasonable, as such standards cannot and should not attempt to address the universe of correctional institutions in specificity. In 1980, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration published a report entitled "Correctional Policy and Standards: Implementation Costs in Five States". (Greiser et al., Institute U.S Govt. Printing Office for Economic and Policy Studies, contract 1980-311-379/1368, Washington, D.C., 1980). The report attempts to estimate the cost of complete compliance with CAC accreditation standards in five states. The analysis of standard number 4090 provides a good example of process analysis. Standard 4090 states that new employees of correctional institutions should receive at least 80 hours of initial orientation and training. Colorado estimated that an average of 120 employees per year would require such training. That number multiplied by 80 hours comes to a total of 9600 training hours per year generated by this standard. An analysis of all of the remaining training standards (2053, 3065, 4091, 2054, 3066, 4092, 4093, 4097, 4098, 4183, and 4271), a total of 146,800 hours of training was estimated. This is equivalent to approximately 80 full-time employees at any one time. Based upon the types of training to be accomplished, Colorado identified $261,000 in personnel costs for training staff, for approximately fifteen employees. In addition, fiftytwo officers were requested to provide relief coverage for the officers in training. Non-correctional officers were not included as it was assumed that their responsibilities in this estimate, could be deferred while in training, or covered by other staff as 15 additional duties. The following is the percent of total training hours generated by various types of requirements: TABLE 11-2: PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING BY GOAL New employee orientation................. 6.5 Inservice training......................272 Management training ...................... 6.5 Training for direct contact employees...27.7 Emergency training....................... 5.4 Other (first aid, weaponry, etc.).......26.7 % % % % % % In all of the states examined in the report, it is interesting to note that an average of 24% of all estimated costs to comply with training standards were "participation costs", or costs to provide relief staff for employees who are attending training. This illustrates the importance of including training requirements in the calculation of coverage factors, which will be illustrated in the next chapter. As an example of process analysis, both the advantages and disadvantages of this method are illustrated in the report. The training standards certainly provide a benchmark for determining the process of the size of training program needed. However, estimating the cost to accomplish that training produced highly disparate results. A comparison of Connecticut and Colorado provides an example. TABLE 11-3: COMPARISON OF TRAINING COSTS CONNECTICUT COLORADO 1978 BUDGET $32,000,000 1979 POPULATION 2,000 1978 EMPLOYEES 1,564 TRAINING COST EST. $342,000 EST./EMPLOYEE $219 $38,000,000 2,300 978 $1,224,000 $1,252 STATE figures are not always completely In any comparison, comparable, and it is recognized that there could have been changes in certain statistics. However, the estimates are widely disparate, even though two relatively comparable states are attempting to comply the same standard, with the assistance of the same agencies, LEAA and its contractor. The explanation for this disparity might be an example of another deficiency of process analysis. It could be that one state has a much higher turnover rate of employees, or that it proposes to provide a much better type of training, or that it shows more real costs in its estimates than the other state. A reliable process standard rarely is so specific that interpretations can be made of its implications. Process standards relating to personnel requirements are generally more vague than standards relating to more concrete 16 such as a fire code requirement, or a ratio of shower topics, heads to prisoners, or a space standard for a single cell. The Public Health Association's American "Standards for Health n Services in Correctional Institutions (Washington, D.C., APHA, 1976) provides a classic example of an ambiguous personnel standard: "The health staff shall be of such a size as to be able to afford to any prisoner in the institution who needs it, quality health care that meets these standards." (pg. 111). It is readily apparent that this statement would not provide any specific guidance beyond the functional standards provided elsewhere in the book. 6. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Comparative analysis infers the adequacy of a staffing another pattern by comparing it to a comparable situation in institution. The effectivness of this approach is dependent upon the appropriateness of the institution selected for comparison. The most frequently used comparative statistic is the staffto- prisoner ratio. As of 1978, for example, the American Correctional Association reported, in the ACA Directory, numbers or prisoners and employees for a large number of states. Here is a selection of rates of employment per 100 prisoners based upon these statistics: TABLE 11-4: RATES OF EMPLOYMENT PER 100 PRISONERS, 1978 Alabama......................39 California ........... ..43 Connecticut .......... ..50 Florida.....................53 Kansas ............... ..51 Kentucky...............39 Massachusetts.........114 Michigan...............37 Mississippi............42 New York..............58 Ohio...................30 Oklahoma...............49 Rhode Island..........106 Texas..................14 Utah ................. ..67 There are several reasons for using a "rate per 100 prisoners" rather than a traditional staff to prisoner ratio. First, it is a whole number, rather than a decimal. Second, the rate avoids the confusion of the higher ratio indicating less staff per prisoner, and the lower ratio indicating more staff per prisoner. There are a number of major problems with the use of to prisoner rates or ratios: While they do measure numbers of employees, 17 they staff do not Thus, two measure the tasks which employees perform. cellhouses might have the same staff-to-prisoner ratios, but in one unit the staff might actual do more supervisory activities, while in the other the staff might be assigned to posts which are not interactive with the population. As a result, the two similar ratios might produce markedly dissimilar results. Most ratios or rates do not consider coverage factors. Thus, have comparable numbers of might institutions two correctional officers, but one might require more training days per year, and might provide more annual leave days. As a result, the actual numbers of officers on duty at any one time would differ. Most ratios or rates do not consider the shifts when so that the same rates might result employees are on duty, from staffing patterns which deploy staff in markedly different ways. Such ratios or rates do not fully consider facility design and mission which significantly influence the numbers of employees needed to complete a given task or general function. Nevertheless, there are some important benefits of a comparison analysis approach as one of several methods to study a problem: It is They are more accessible than most other measures. for example, to compare rates of employment of easier, accounting staff with those of another institution, than to conduct two task analyses of the units. They are generally more objective because they are simpler. Two or three different persons could compare rates of employment for several functions, and each arrive at the same results as to the measures. The same persons might not arrive a similar results for a task analysis because of the greater complexity of the measures to be developed. They are easier to communicate and understand as management devices, because of their simplicity. Chapter comparative Four of this report uses measures extensively, providing rates of employment per hundred prisoners for many categories of positions in many institutions. The methodology which has been developed reflects some attempts to alleviate problems associated with comparative measures: The measures for each institution are broken down by functional category, avoiding some of the problems which result from comparing institutions which have similar numbers of staff and prisoners, but which employ their staff for different types of functions. 18 Measures are provided which show the actual numbers of employees on duty for specific shifts, cutting through misimpressions created by differing leave or training policies. The latter parts of this report serve as one example of use of comparative measures in staff analysis. However, following study is another example of such an approach. the the In 1980, a state correctional agency conducted an internal study of such rates, following a report by a state budgeting agency which suggested that the number of employees in that be reduced. The project identified a state's prisons could number of factors which influence the rates. The study was based upon data from over 100 institutions in seven states. While reasonably reliable, the findings should be considered tentative until a more nationally-based study can confirm or dispute them. Today, however, this is some of the best data available. No names of states are provided because this was an assurance provided to the states which agreed to provide data to the state conducting the study. Economies of scale accounted for some differences. The study reported that systems with more than two-thirds of their population in facilities with populations of over 1500 beds had an average rate of 13, whereas systems with less than two-thirds of the population in large facilities had an average rate of 29. The length of the average program day also was associated with rates of employment. Systems with maximum security prisoners out of cells for more than eight hours per day had an average rate of 29, whereas those with an eight-hour policy had an average rate of 13. I n m a t e idleness was associated with lower rates of correctional officer employment. This data is much less disparate highly clear, but, if one excludes one institution, the units with more than 10% idleness had a rate of 18, and those with less than 10% had 26.5. Including the disparate state, the rate for those above 10% is 23. Assaults on staff occur less frequently when there are fewer employees The institutions with over ten assaults per thousand employees had an average rate of 29 officers per 100 prisoners, whereas those with a rate of less than 10 assaults per 1000 prisoners, had an officer employment rate of 13. Homocides within prisons tend to occur more frequently in prisons with low rates of employment. States with rates of more than one homocide per year per 5000 average daily prisoners had an average officer employment rate of 17, whereas states with rates of less than one per year per 10,000 ADP had an average employment rate of 30. 19 General assaults on prisoners tend to occur in prisons with lower rates of employment. Institutions with fewer than 20 assaults per year per 1000 prisoners had an average rate of officer employment of 29. Those with more than 20 assaults had an average rate of 19. The conclusions presented in this project deserve evaluation in projects which are available for independent analysis. Until such projects have been completed, these findings can be only considered as tentative. C. SUMMARY The following are some suggestions as to the types of situations one might encounter in correctional institutions where various methods of work analysis might be appropriate. TASK ANALYSIS, OR MOTION AND TIME STUDY Use when the job to be evaluated consists of specific tasks, and when the tasks are uniform and repetitive. As a general guide, a job should consist of no more than ten tasks completed at least ten times each per hour. Use task analysis most of the time, but use M&TS when the implications of error are substantial, such as when investing in major new equipment or when designing new facilities or major renovations. PRODUCTIVITY AUDITING Use when considering replacement of one method or approach with another, such as substituting a centralized records unit for several decentralized ones. Use when considering the costs and benefits of automation. OUTCOME ANALYSIS Use for an overall, general analysis of all areas of the staffing of an institution, on an ongoing basis. General measures of performance can identify possible problem areas, but do not prove the need for added staff by themselves. PROCESS ANALYSIS Use when your goals or procedures are clearly defined, as when you are attempting to meet a standard. Use when attempting to implement a single standard multiple locations, such as a new program or procedure. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: 20 such at Use to develop an overall perspective on staffing levels -global indications of strength or weakness. discover possible alternative Use to approaches to functions, by identifying institutions which accomplish comparable tasks with markedly different levels of staff. Use to justify staffing levels or recommendations to public officials. Other methods may also be useful, but officials will usually inquire as to what other institutions are doing with comparable functions. The objective of this chapter has been to introduce correctional officials to possible approaches to determining the numbers of staff needed for functions within their institutions. The next chapter will review how to organize that level of staffing according to shifts. 21 CHAPTER THREE ORGANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL POSTS AND POSITIONS A. INTRODUCTION This chapter will review methods of organizing the work of a correctional institution, so that it can be accomplished by a team of employees. There are two dimensions to the organization of a workforce: Hierarchical and functional organization: The staff must be coordination, and organized so that there is command, supervision. Normally, this requires the establishment of a written chain of command as well as the organization of personnel into functional groups. The staff must be organized with Temporal organization: respect to time. Normally, this requires the assignment of people to shifts, and the scheduling of employment SO that the necessary numbers of employees are on duty at all times. The remainder of this chapter will deal with these of staff organization. elements B. HIERARCHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION there are three ways to organize the chain of In concept, the project model, command of a prison: the traditional model, In reality, and the matrix model. these models are expressed in such as the unit management concept, or the several forms, military concept. The TRADITIONAL MODEL is based upon some concepts first articulated by Max Weber during the 19th century. Weber's concept of a bureaucracy had four basic elements: The positions should be grouped according to specialized functions, to enable efficiency and supervision. The positions should be arranged hierarchically, so that each employee except for the ultimate top administrator is supervised by another employee. The responsibilities of positions should be defined by rules so that each employee's duties are clearly and procedures, defined. Positions should be depersonalized, to facilitate the replacement of employees when this is necessary, and to permit the selection of employees based upon explicit qualifications, rather than subjective or personal factors. Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of Since this model is the prevailing traditional organizations. 23 approach in problems. corrections today, it is useful to examine these major advantage for a prison system is that A the model traditional clearly assigns responsibility to employees. This is, of course, critical to the management of any large and complex organization, but is especially important in the management of security. Another advantage to the traditional model is that the depersonalization and merit selection of employees is very important to a correctional system which is attempting to move away from previous patterns of political involvement in institutions. Thus, a warden seeking to wean a local politition from an inclination to patronage can reinforce that effort by a traditionally organized prison. A disadvantage is that the traditional organization is not very flexible. As a result, situations requiring the coordinated effort of employees who are in functionally and hierarchically distant units, such as a problem which has medical, environmental, and security dimensions, is difficult to organize without violating the principles of the traditional organization. Thus, while a procedural manual may call for certain specific patterns of command and communication, a supervisor often has to resort to informal arrangements which violate these patterns. While this may solve a problem or cope with an emergency, it makes for difficult relations with supervisors who might feel circumvented, and it results in situations where procedures do not fully describe actions. This can sometimes be difficult to explain in a courtroom. Another disadvantage is that the communication patterns of a traditional organization are not always feasible. Theoretically, if a low level employee wishes to communicate to another low level employee through the chain of command, and if the two employees are in functionally and hierarchically distant units, then the message may have to go all the way up and down that organizational hierarchy before it can be delivered. To the extent that, as an alternative, the employees communicate directly, the accountability and supervisory advantages of the organization are reduced. As a result of these problems, prisons often cope by stressing either hierarchy over rules and procedures, or the reverse. Thus, one can find institutions which are run strictly according to rules, and which as a result are very bureaucratic and inefficient; or institutions which are run according to highly delegated hierarchy, so that the institution appears to be a series of independent fiefdoms run by middle managers. Both of these approaches cope, to an extent, with the problems of traditional organizations, but not without a reduction in efficient and coordinated operation. 24 The most common example of the traditional model is the military model, where the prison is modeled after a military organization. Sometimes the names of positions are revised to reflect a more civilian approach, the the essential concept is intact. A second approach is the PROJECT MODEL. While this can be a model for the overall structure of an organization, it is more generally applied as a temporary structure to cope with an immediate problem, or as a limited devise to enable the In general, the coordinated response to a specific problem. project model consists of the organization of personnel according an employee might be assigned to Group A for to a task. Thus, task A, and Group B for task B. In corrections, there are some common examples. The warden might assign employees drawn from many areas of a prison to develop a new procedure for classification. While these employees work for there respective supervisors, for the purposes of developing the procedure, they work for the leader of the task force. Employees might be permanently assigned to an institutional classification committee. Such a structure violates the literal principles of a traditional organization, but it does resolve problems of communication and coordination. The project organization solves some problems of a traditional organization, but it does not represent a good way to organize an entire institution, precisely because it lacks accountability. A third approach is the MATRIX MODEL. A matrix organization is called by that term because there are two or more organizational structures, one of which is generally presented vertically like a traditional organization, and one of which is presented horizontally, with the chain of command flowing from rather than from top to bottom. As a result, most left to right, employees have two or more supervisors rather than one. In an firm, architectural for example, an employee might report to a project coordinator for the particular project he or she is working on, as well as to a functional coordinator for the type of specialty the employee performs. a question of Thus, electrical engineering would be referred to that supervisor, while a question of project schedule would be referred to the project coordinator. When a conflict occurs, the employee would attempt to resolve it with the two supervisors. If that is then the ultimate resolution occurs at a higher unsuccessful, level, such as the supervisor of the two coordinators. The general advantage to this model is that complex problems tend to get resolved at the level where an employee is most aware of all of the dimensions to the problem. This is especially useful when very different disciplines must be coordinated, such as medicine and classification or security. It is also useful 25 when the work of an organization changes frequently. In corrections, there are some good examples of matrix although they are generally not structures, organizational Usually employees are assigned to one described as such. with instructions to "coordinate" with another. This supervisor, The avoids the appearance of violation of unity of command. where a corrections of situations in following are examples matrix organizational structure is appropriate. Unit management involves the organization of much of an institution's staff into teams associated with housing units. The advantage is that this tends to make a large institution resemble a smaller one in aspects which relate to the daily lives of prisoners. Coordination problems can occur, however, in relating within-unit functions with such as security. This is especially external functions, during acute when considered across shifts. Theoretically, still employees within units are night shifts, the responsible to their team leaders who are not present, just as they would be if the cellhouse were a small independent institution, and the employee was a shift supervisor, or the the situation within units In reality, only one on duty. must be coordinated throughout the institution. As a result, the unit staff is generally either supervised by, or responsible to "coordinate with" the shift supervisor of the institution. This is the type of problem that a matrix is intended to resolve, because it allows the organization chain of command to be described the way it really is intended to work, without either violating the goals of unit management, or creating informal supervisory relationships institutional which are not clearly articulated in procedures. Medical services presents another example. With respect to the staff must respond to medical functions and decisions, medical supervisors. However, basic logistical and security functions must also be coordinated, requiring coordination with non-medical staff such as shift supervisors. The traditional organizational structure cannot describe such as situation very well, and generally must subordinate one function to another. The matrix organizational model is clearly appropriate here. In planning or evaluating the organizational structure of a to prison, there are some basic ideas and recommendations consider. These are not experimentally proven principles, but rather are the reflections of the author, based upon some notable successes and failures in dealing with these problems. the It is developing probably best to begin by organizational structure along the lines of the traditional model, resorting to project and matrix structures when the traditional model does not adequately define the necessary relationship. 26 Attempt to limit the span of control, or number of people supervised by a supervisor, to between three and seven. In the staffing pattern descriptions at the end of the report, the span of control of each employee is measured. As is apparent, many institutions violate this principle, and it source of some of their problems. A large span of the is control is only appropriate when a high level of automony can be expected from each employee supervised, or when all of the employees are doing a simple repetitive task which requires very little supervision. Sometimes a large span of control reflects unresolved organizational conflict, where a large number of employees want to maintain the impression of accountability and access to a high level official. It rarely works well, however, to organize an agency in a manner which is not functionally practical. The result will staff and a lot of be great lack of coordination, infighting. A manager may wish to distinguish between "line employees" and "staff employees". Line employees are those through whom passes the chain of command. These people have specific authority and generally supervise other people with specific authority. Staff employees help line employees, but do not have actual authority. Sometimes they act in the capacity of their supervisor, but the authority and responsibility rests with the supervisor. When an organizational structure is developed, a major decision involves the hierarchical division of the employees, or the arrangement of the workforce into manageable groups. There are five approaches which this project has identified. This approach avoids FUNCTIONAL DECENTRALIZATION: the The appearance that one group has been favored over another. staff is divided into many functional units according to similarity of job. Then a supervisor is selected for each group. The chart which results suggests many equal units with equal authority. Generally, the actual hierarchy is defined by the degree of access and attention the supervisor gives to each group. The result is that the supervisor often works excessively so as to avoid neglecting any one area, and the staff tend to compete and fight for access, or insulate their teams from the rest of the organization by creating little kingdoms. This approach makes everyone happy when the chart is drawn up, but creates ill feelings and poor coordination later on. FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY: Under this approach, one functional area, usually security, is designated as predominant, and all of the remaining areas are made subservient to it. The justification is that the one functional area is the most important. In reality, however, all of the functional areas have at least some essential purposes, and this approach places people who are not qualified to accomplish those essential purposes in a position where they are responsible for them. The result very often is 27 crisis management. High level administrative effort is devoted to the main function, while the subsidiary functions are attended to when a crisis makes a malfunction apparent. UNIT MANAGEMENT or LOCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION: Under this the staff associated with housing units, approach, and related program and support staff if their function is associated primarily with a given unit, are grouped by unit. The following are some general advantages of this approach: Many aspects of life for the prisoner population are less like a large institution and more like a small institution. Prisoners associate with smaller groups of staff and inmates. Decisions can be made at a lower level, with more participation by the prisoners, or at least a better level of awareness of the decision process. Mid-management Better jobs are created for employees. opportunities open up because of the positions associated with unit team leadership. Also, each employee has a better sense of the significance of his or her specific job role in relation to the overall functioning of the unit. There are also some disadvantages. Unit management will probably require and creates some potential somewhat more staff, coordination and communication problems between staff associated with unit and non-unit functions. TEAM MODEL: For small institutions, it is sometimes possible structures, to adopt more flexible and informal organizational especially in less structured and secure units such as halfway houses or group homes. This may also be feasible as an organizational model for one or two unit teams under a unit employees are expected to management concept. Under this model, assume responsibility for the operation of the institution or unit, and are expected to cooperate in accomplishing that goal. The organization at any time is determined by the work to be done, with only very minimal guidance by the organizational supervisor. Clearly, a very large institution, or a functionally complex one such as a jail, could not reliably function under such a model. SHIFT MODEL: In some institutions, the first division of the organizational structure is by shift, with perhaps one extra division for support functions. Thus, there might be a day division, an evening division, and a night division. The clear advantage to this approach is that the leadership for each division is routinely available when most of the workers are on duty. The disadvantages are that divisions tend to lack so that the evening operations are coordination with each other, not consistent with the night operations, and that important functional operations are not grouped together. However, at some point in the organizational structure, there does have to be a 28 including some typical examples of days involved: Holidays..........16 Annual leave......10 Annual training . ...5 Illness leave ... ...5 Days in court ... ...2 TOTAL.............38 must be deducted from the total This total leaving 223 days (261 minus 38). This theoretically available, (dividing 261 by results in a simple coverage factor of 1.17, 1.17 223). This means that for every hour a post is open, employee hours must be acquired in order to staff the post and and other obligations. However, to provide for leave, training, the coverage factor could be increased be truly accurate, slightly to allow for rounding of positions which are not fully required in whole numbers. For example, a unit team might require 8.78 positions, but practicality would call for the employment of nine people. Such rounding can either be accomplished by rounding up as required as the pattern is specified, on a position-byposition or post-by-post basis, or by adding a small increment to the factor initially. explicit. An Several examples might make this more institution is about to open a new multipurpose program facility, from 1:OOpm to which was to be open from monday to friday, 9:OOpm. Assume that five officers must be assigned to the facility when it is open. The facility is open a total of forty so a total hours per week, and five officer posts are required, If the of two hundred officer hours per week are required. officers work a forty-hour week, then one might conclude that this would not provide for five officers are required. However, and the other factors illustrated above. training, leave, Assuming that the institution has a coverage factor of 1.17 as then 234 (200 multiplied by 1.17) actual illustrated above, or just about hours of officer time would have to be acquired, six officers, rather than five. A specific coverage factor for any institution must be calculated specifically for that institution. The following is a list of common time deduction factors: annual leave sick leave holidays military leave training periods authorized union activities unauthorized absence unanticipated time in court Several of these categories must be calculated based upon the experience of the institution. These include sick leave or military leave, where the total amount of authorized time might 31 not be fully used by the employees. A routine pattern of unauthorized absence must also be recognized for as long as it is allowed to continue. Correctional officers are sometimes required to be in court when they are sued by prisoners. To the extent that this occurs to even a small number of officers relatively frequently, then this must be reflected in the coverage factor. It may be desirable to calculate separate coverage factors for different types or ranks of officers. Supervisory officers may have a higher factor. Officers in their first year of employment may have a higher factor due to training requirements and adjustment to the job. The estimation of the staff for a new program employing new officers could actually require a higher factor than the average factor for all officers. An extended coverage factor considers and additional problem a when determining the number of employees required for continuous post. A tower, for example, is often staffed around the clock, seven days per week. An extended coverage factor applies the basic coverage factor to the number of hours certain types of posts are typically open. A tower open all of the time is open 168 hours per week, based upon 7 days multiplied by 24 hours. A total of 195.56 hours of employee time must be acquired to staff it, however, because of the basic coverage factor (1.17 X 168). Thus, about five officers would be required to staff a tower around the clock in this example (196.56 divided by 40 hours per officer per week). The following is a table illustrating the total hours per week of certain common types of shifts. An extended coverage factor for those shifts would be calculated by multiplying the total hours by the basic coverage factor for your institution, and then dividing by the number of hours an employee works per week, not considering overtime. 24-hour, 7-day...............168 16-hour,7-day...............112 8-hour,7-day................ 56 16-hour,5-day................80 Assuming the basic coverage factor illustrated above, which is 1.17, the following are the extended coverage factors which would result in our example: 24-hour, seven day: l6-hour, 7-day: 8-hour, 7-day: 16-hour, 5-day: 4.914 3.276 1.638 2.340 The following is a computation table which may be useful in making these calculations: 32 The supervision. for multi-shift operation and mechanism such as non-unit custody organization of some of the staff, for example, along the lines of this model, would provide staff, for the multi-shift supervision of these personnel. the hierarchical organization of staff is In summary, important to the successful operation of an critically Even the most carefully designed staffing pattern institution. can fail if it is not organized properly. C. SHIFT PATTERNS The general objective of a shift pattern is to structure work hours to achieve the necessary coverage of posts and positions to accomplish the work to be done. The next section such as will review many approaches to structuring work, alternative shift cycles and patterns, as well as the concepts which underly them, and their relative utility. 1. CONTINUITY: POSTS AND POSITIONS the term "post" refers to a job, Throughout this report, generally the responsibility of a correctional officer, which is and duties: but which may be defined by its location, time, filled interchangeably by a number of officers. A control center, tower, or cellhouse assignment can be considered a post. A "position" refers to a job which is held by a specific person, such as the business manager, a secretary, or a plumber. As in circumstance, terminology used to describe a complex any but the general concept the distinctions are blurred, sometimes is important for reasons which will become apparent. Continuity is a basic and important distinction between positions and posts. A post generally has tasks associated with it which cannot be deferred, they are either done or not done. For example,' a post at the supply dock at a prison must be filled or supplies cannot be received. Many posts are associated with tasks which must be done twenty-four hours per day, every day, continuously. Many other posts must be filled more than eight hours per day, the length of a conventional shift. As a result of the requirement for continuous or semi-continuous accomplishment of the tasks, the determination of the number of persons to be employed to fill a post must include consideration of the total hours the post is open, plus a factor or contingency to cover for vacations, other leaves, employee turnover, training obligations, and other factors. The calculation of such a contingency or coverage factor will be reviewed later in this chapter. A position, in contrast, is a much simpler concept. The job of "Business Manager", for example, is generally intended to be a thirty-five to forty hour job. (Business managers reading this chapter may laugh hysterically at this point.) If a business manager goes on vacation, his or her responsibilities are either deferred until he or she returns, or they are delegated to another employee who temporarily does two jobs. Thus, no coverage 29 factor must be calculated to fully staff a position. Generally, employees in positions work a standard shift pattern, such as "normal office hours", from approximately 8:OOam to 5:OOpm. Use of a coverage factor may be necessary to determine the number of positions necessary to accomplish 'a function. Even though the job may not require continual duty, time for leave and training does reduce the time available for normal duties. If, for example, a given function required 80 hours per week of work to complete, two workers would never complete it if the worked 40 hours per week, but also took leave time and attended training. Thus, a coverage factor must be considered in determining the numbers of employees needed to get the work done. Chapter Five will illustrate this more precisely. A generalization is that posts are filled by correctional officers, while non-correctional positions are filled by officers. This is generally, but not completely, true. Exceptions would include a correctional officer working as one of several mail clerks, or as a locksmith. These tasks would not necessarily require a coverage factor. A high-level supervisory correctional officer, such as the chief officer, would not be filling a continuous post. Non-correctional officer employees such as paramedical staff might fill continuous posts. In that example, one paramedic might have to be on duty at all times. The same might be true of a clerk at a reception desk. The provision of continuous coverage can generate the need for a substantially larger contingent of employees than one might initially estimate. to fill two positions would For example, require two employees. For reasons which will be explained later in the chapter, to fill two twenty-four hour continuous posts such as two towers would require approximately ten to twelve employees. If a staffing pattern does not consider these factors, it may be insufficient to accomplish the work to be done. 2. CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTORS A coverage factor is the ratio between the number of hours a post is open, and the number of hours of employee time which must be acquired to fill the post during the open hours. Since the post must be filled each hour it is open, extra employee time, or "relief time" must be acquired to cover for sick leave, vacation, holidays, training obligations, and other factors. Theoretically, an employee working a shift consisting of five days per seven day week, would work 260 days per year, based upon a fifty-two week year. This is calculated by subtracting 104 days (52 weeks times 2 days), from the 365 days in a year. Precisely, the employee could work 260.89 days, based upon a 365.25 day year considering leap years. From this total, one must deduct for days which are not actually worked, due to tradition, legal and contractual rights, and management objectives. Categories of such days are listed, 30 COVERAGE FACTOR CALCULATION SUMMARY EXAMPLE STEP 1. Regular days off per employee per year (usually 52 weeks per year x 2 days off per week) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Remaining work days per year, which is 365 minus #l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 3. Vacation days off per employee per year. 10 4. Holiday days off per employee per year.. 16 5. Average number of sick days taken per employee per year....................... 5 Average number of inservice training days per employee per year.............. 3 Additional initial training days for each new employee beyond inservice training in #6 above.................... 10 Percent of employees employed one year or less . . . ............................. 20 Number of other days off per year, such as for union meetings, litigation, military leave, special assignments, funeral leave, injury, etc.............. 2 Total days off per year equals #3+4+5+6 +9 to which is added #7 multiplied by #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36+2 Number of actual work days per employee per year equals #2 minus #l0............ 223 12. Coverage factor equals #2 divided by #lO 1.17 13. Seven-day coverage ratio equals #13 multiplied by 1.4, which is 7/5......... 1.64 Continuous coverage ratio equals #13 multiplied by 168, and divided by the number of hours an employee works each not including overtime, which is week, usually 40 . . . . . . . . . . ................... 4.91 2. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 14. 33 Some methods of calculation vary from that presented above, and the following are some alternative approaches and their rationales: method decreases the actual work One days (#ll) by for example, .9275, multiplying it by a downtime factor of, to allow for lunches and breaks. This report suggests that such factors be accounted for in the design of posts and positions, since coverage for lunches and breaks must be actually achieved through a routine -assignment of an employee. It is the general philosophy in this report that routine jobs should be accounted for as duties of posts and positions, while non-routine and non-job factors such as vacations should be accounted for in a coverage factor. Unless this distinction is closely followed, double if breaks are provided accounting will occur. For example, for in the coverage factor, and if a post is created in the usual manner to cover for officers on break by rotating from post to post, the personnel for this post would have been provided twice -- once through authorization of the post, and again through the coverage factor on all posts. As a in an result, such a system would tend to result overestimate of staffing needs by five to six percent. Some methods define the coverage factor in such a way as to provide for coverage around the week as is illustrated in #13 above. Actually, a coverage factor is an abstract ratio which is applicable to any unit of time, such as an hour, and day or a year. This author prefers to calculate the abstract ratio and then apply it to convenient units of time for the work to be done. In some systems, employees work 35 hours per week, rather In developing a coverage factor in such cases, than forty. it is important to consider how the work schedule is managed. Usually, since it is inefficient to attempt to schedule continuous operations on the basis of anything other than a three-shift day, either employees are given overtime pay for the additional five hours per week, or they are given additional annual leave as compensatory time. In the overtime case, the coverage factor would be calculated and the additional on the basis of a 40-hour five day week, overtime would be managed as a salary bonus. Under the annual leave method, the shorter work week would be expressed in the coverage factor as a greater number of annual leave days. Some methods include factors such as learning curves (the time required for an employee to learn to do a job up to standard). This author, for the reasons stated above, suggests that such factors be considered in the design of jobs and posts, but that they not be considered in the calculation of coverage factors. The number of positions needed to staff a post at a given time should take into consideration and the typical the difficulty of the work, 34 level of employee competence achieved. This results in a number of employees on duty adequate to accomplish the required workload. Some methods include the time needed to fill vacancies into the coverage factor, although this report does not recommend it. The coverage factor should describe the number of employees needed to accomplish a given level of work. The inability of a given agency to produce that number of albiet very real, employees is an entirely separate, problem. The vacancy problem is best accounted for by the calculation of a separate ratio -- the total authorized positions divided by the average level of employment achieved. If one multiplies the authorized positions by this ratio, it yields a hypothetical number of positions which, if used as a basis for hiring decisions, would in time yield a number of actual employees close to the authorized level. The reason for calculation of a separate ratio is to avoid the wrong impression that the hypothetical number of positions -- the hiring goal -- is the actual number needed to do the work. An additional practical problem is that inclusion of the vacancy time in the coverage factor would probably result in the funding of positions during time the periods when, according to the calculation method, positions are vacant. It is important to remember that use of coverage factors carry management responsibilities. If positions are authorized on the assumption that certain levels of training are to be for example, then a roster management system should be achieved, implemented to assure that this occurs. Roster management is not within the scope of this monograph, but it is an ability which should accompany the use of coverage factors. 3. SHIFT CYCLES There are two basic types of shift cycles commonly used in correctional institutions. There are numerous other types of shift cycles and patterns which are not commonly used, but which Institute for Public could be used. These can be found in: Program Analysis: Work Schedule Design Handbook (U.S. Dept. of 1978). This Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., publication is highly useful for any official who must regularly organize a workforce into shifts. The most typical is the seven day cycle, based upon a seven day week. This type of cycle is In this type of cycle, also typically used is private industry. are repeated every seven days for most employees. shifts Employees primarily working relief for other employees might work on a more random schedule. The basic advantage of a seven day cycle is that it corresponds with the organization of the rest of our society. Schedules of other family members, day care help, and commercial activity can be synchronized with the schedule of the employee. 35 The alternative type of cycle is the six day cycle, sometimes referred to as "four and two scheduling". While on the seven day cycle the employee would typically work five days and get two off, on the six day cycle, the employee works four days and gets two off, but gets no holidays. The basic advantages of the six day cycle is that it provides coverage automatically on holidays, and that it rotates employee days off. The disadvantage is that it does not correspond with general practice in most of and generally it is inappropriate for the rest of society, and administrative employees who need to work in professional communication with other employees in other agencies who work a conventional 5&2 seven day week. In some institutions, the correctional officers work a 4&2 schedule, and the professional and administrative staff work a 5&2 schedule. The two types of cycles roughly produce the same number of work days in a year, depending upon the number of holidays The seven day cycle occurs 52 times per year and allowed. generates 261 days per year for work, minus holidays. The six day and generates 244 days for work, cycle occurs 61 times per year, or 17 fewer days. Depending upon the number of holidays, there is a difference of five to ten days per year. This difference can be managed in several days, including reduced leave, or the requirement of overtime, or the lengthening of shifts by one-half hour to provide for overlap between shifts, or by requiring attendance by employees at training programs on the off days once every month or so. There is no definitive evidence that one cycle works better than the other. A generalization is that the seven day cycle coordinates better with the outside world and professional and administrative staff, while the six day cycle relates somewhat more conveniently to the actual problems of operating a correctional institution. 4. SHIFT PATTERNS Employees typically work about forty hours per week. Shift patterns represent methods of structuring and dividing this time across a shift cycle. Conventionally, employees work for five days per week, for seven to eight hours per day. This type of shift pattern, however, does not always correspond with the actual duration of work tasks, or with the leisure time preferences of employees, especially in a field such as corrections. For example, a certain post may be operational for ten hours per day, but may inefficiently consume two eight hour shifts to staff it, resulting in marginal utilization of an employee for six of the sixteen hours of the two shifts. These employees are working, but the tasks may not really require the six extra hours of effort. A workweek consisting of four ten-hour days could staff the ten-hour post on any day with one employee rather than two. Depending upon the number of days of the week the post is open, and the degree of need for the marginal six hours, the workhours, and the cost, of staffing the post could be 36 reduced by up to 37.5%. This is based upon a reduction from 112 hours per week (7 days times 16 hours), to 70 hours per week (7 days times ten hours). Obviously, such a technique would only work in a limited number of circumstances. However, the example illustrates the importance a well designed shift cycle and pattern to the efficient operation of a correctional institution. A productive and efficient operation is generally the result of many small improvements taken together over time, rather than any one major change or basic original plan. If a manager could implement one successful productivity improvement project per month, saving 42 hours per week as illustrated above, over a year that manager would have created the equivalent of approximately twelve new employees, to be devoted to new operations, or to enable cost reductions without service cuts. There are five approaches in industry and public administration to the management of work hours. The feasibility of these concepts should be examined in correctional institutions as well. The first concept is the FOUR-TEN PLAN or compressed workweek, which is a simple label for the concept of establishing longer shifts for fewer workdays. In corrections, this concept is applicable to posts which are open for more than one conventional shift, but less than two. Typical examples are recreation areas which are open in the afternoon and evening, backup officers in housing areas during peak movement periods, or posts associated with activities which take eight hours, but which require an hour of set-up before and after. For example, if prison industries were to work prisoners for a strict eight hour day as has been suggested in some recent studies,' an officer supervising such an area might need to work a ten hour shift to cover the post and to inspect the area before and after work hours. The alternative would be to pay overtime, or to use two officers for the post, one coming in early, and one staying late. Depending upon the precise requirements of the post, and the ability of the institution to productively use the marginal time of the second officer, an extended shift concept might be the best choice. The second concept is called FLEXTIME. Under this approach, for example, employees working a day shift in a records area, would be required to be at work from 1O:OOam to 3:00pm, but could start work as early as 6:OOam and leave as late as 7:00pm, provided that they work eight hours per workday, or forty hours each employee must plan his or per workweek. In some programs, her hours in advance with approval by the supervisor. Others simply require documentation of the hours worked. Flextime has obvious advantages for employees, because it permits them to use their leisure time more efficiently. However, in certain instances it can also enable improvements in productivity. Assume for example that the records unit in the above example has a variable, but somewhat predictable workload. An eight-to-five fixed schedule would always provide the same number of employees, 37 regardless of workload. Flextime would permit the supervisor to increase staffing prior to parole hearings or at other times of In addition, work patterns could be restructured so peak demand. that checking out of files could be done during high demand hours, and refiling of files, or original filing of new documents, could be done at off-peak hours. This would probably productivity because the work would flow in one increase direction, in or out, resulting is a more smooth flow of employee traffic in the work area. Another advantage is that the records unit would be open more hours per day at no added cost. This could conceivably help other units within the institution to become more productive. third The concept is to evaluate SHIFT ASSIGNMENT This concept is not single-ended in VARIATIONS. its recommendations: there is no one best way to implement it. The basic idea is to critically evaluate the rationale for the assignment of particular employees or operations to particular shifts. Here are some factors to be considered in such an evaluation. Psychological studies have indicated that worker capacities suffer when they work highly variable shift patterns, such as one day on the day shift, the next on the night shift, and the next on the evening shift. Thus, an attempt should be made to assign an employee to a particular shift, and only rotate it once every two or three months, if necessary. (See Koosoris, Max, Studies of the Effects of Long Working Hours Washington Bureau of L a b o r D.C.: Government Statistics Bulletins 791 and 971A (Washington, Printing Office, 1944).) Assignment to shifts by seniority or by some arbitrary method is equally undesirable, however, because it can increase employee turnover by placing new employees in the least desirable work circumstances, and because it limits management's ability to assign personnel on the basis of capacity to do a particular job well. To a limited extent, shift assignment variations can be used by management as an incentive for improved productivity. It is especially useful in times of tight budgets, because it is a nonmonetary, yet potent, incentive. The assignment of certain functions to unusual shifts can sometimes improve productivity. In a congested area, or an overworked unit, breaking down the workforce into two shifts can and improve each employees ability sometimes relieve congestion, to get a job done. This idea is especially useful in functions involving paper-processing. Such an approach can also sometimes avoid the need for a physical expansion of a physical plant devoted to such an operation. Finally, some functions having special security or operational requirements, such as exercise or programming for a protective custody unit, often work better when operated during a 38 such as late at night. Prisoners can get access to quiet shift, resources and areas not usually. available to them, without compromising security or classification objectives. In each of the above approaches, special incentives may be needed to motivate employees to work special hours. Several approaches are discussed in the following article: Nanda and "Hours of Work, Job Satisfaction, and Productivity", in Browne, PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW, Volume II, No. 3, New York, Center for Productive Public Management, 445 W59th, New York, 10019). The fourth method is an old one which might deserve That is the use of PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT. There reconsideration. are two reasons why this might be desirable. First, an employee working a shorter shift could be used during a period of peak demand in an operation, without the expense of employment during non-peak hours. A part-time employee might be substituted for a full-time one. Second, the employment of part-time personnel may give an institution access to a potential workforce at a time when pay rates or other incentives for fulltime employees are not sufficient to fill all authorized positions. This may become increasingly important when private salary and wages increase to cover inflation, but public salaries and wages do not. At the Minnesota Correctional Facility at St. Cloud, students are hired as part time correctional officers. They are used to supervise a recreation program during the evenings for four hours. Two half-time employees can cover the program all days of the week, as well as provide for their leave time, because the one full time position, divided as two half time positions, provides a potential of ten four-hour periods per week. This is sufficient to cover the seven days as well as leave. If a fulltime position were used, the same level of coverage could not be achieved. The fifth alternative shift pattern concept is the SPLIT SHIFT. The type of pattern is typically used in the restaurant industry, where work demand peaks at mealtime. Under such a system, for example, for three hours at an employee would work, lunchtime, and for five hours in the evening, with a three hour break between the two periods. This has clear advantages for the because he or she pays for employees only for those employer, hours where demand is greatest. The value of this pattern for the employee is less clear. For example, in the above illustration, the employee commits eleven hours per work day to work, unless he or she can productively use the three hours in between. This would probably depend upon whether the employee resides near to work, or whether the worksite is near to shopping or other areas where the employee might typically need to go to anyway. In evaluating possible changes in work hour patterns at an institution, a manager should keep in mind the basic ways in which such changes could improve productivity. First, alternative patterns 39 of work hours can make the number of employees on duty at any time correspond more closely to the actual work requirements at the time. Slacktime is reduced. longer periods of work can increase the ratio of Second, for example, an productive time to preparation time. If, institution counts an employee as reporting for duty when he the process of or she first enters the institution, reporting for duty, shift briefings, and assuming posts could take up to an hour per day. On an eight hour day this would represent 12.5% of the shift time, while on a ten hour day this would represent 10% of the shift time. This relatively small differences can become expensive if they generate overtime, or if they create the need for two shifts of personnel to do work that could almost be accomplished by one. Third, variations in work hour patterns can be used as nonincentives for employees to become monetary, no-cost productive in other areas. For example, employees in a clerical area showing the greatest productivity could be given the first opportunity to participate in a flextime such incentives program. At a time when budgets are tight, can be valuable tools. Finally, variations in work hours can contribute to increased levels of employee satisfaction. Higher morale can cause greater productivity and lower attrition rates, enabling savings in employment and training costs of new employees, while retaining the advantages of an experienced workforce. Increased levels of employee satisfaction can occur as a result of the following factors. hours to can tailor their work allow Employees accomplishment of personal goals. These may be leisure pursuits, personal activities such as shopping or banking, or family responsibilities such as picking up a child at a day care center. With the increased incidence of families where both spouses are employed, the ability to tailor work hours more flexibly will become increasingly important. Alternative work hour patterns can have direct economic advantages for employees. For example, if an employee has to drive to work a significant distance, working four ten-hour rather than five eight-hour days, can result in a 20% days, savings in gasoline and vehicle wear and tear. Assuming that an employee drives 25 miles to and from work, which is not unusual in a rural area, and assuming that it costs about 20 eliminating a trip per week cents per mile for the trip, would save ten dollars per week or $500 per year. After taxes, since savings are not taxed, this is equal to a $600 to $800 raise, which as a supplement to a regular raise in a lean-budget year, is worth considering. Also, such variations may 40 improve working conditions, especially in crowded or congested areas, where a multiple shift operation reduces the number of people on duty at any time in the area. activity. A Organizing a staffing pattern is an ongoing continuing process of reevaluation, and revision to respond to changing work operations, is necessary. 41 CHAPTER FOUR AN EXAMINATION OF SPECIFIC STAFFING ISSUES A. INTRODUCTION All decisions about staffing of prisons and jails can be divided into two types: those which are technical, dealing with the process of managing staff levels, or translating posts and positions into required numbers of employees, and those which are fundamental, dealing with the absolute question of whether to at a given location and time, include a given post or position, within a staffing pattern. Within this report, the chapter on management of posts and positions generally dealt with technical decisions, while the chapter on determining and evaluating staff requirements generally dealt with fundamental decisions. This chapter attempts to focus on the fundamental questions again, by examining and comparing the staffing levels of various prisons and jails. The analysis should provide some ideas, and for those who must evaluate existing some general guidelines, levels of staff, or develop proposals for the operation of new are not a facilities. The report and its recommendations substitute for the task analysis processes discussed earlier, because correctional institutions are usually quite different from one another. However, application of some of the suggestions developed later in the report should assist the staff planner or evaluator in the following ways: It should provide a relatively comprehensive list of task areas to be considered, to provide for all of potential functions of a given institution. the the It should direct a planner or evaluator to areas of potential over- or understaffing, by enabling comparison to the general rates of employment per hundred prisoners in other institutions. It should stimulate some new ideas, and suggest alternative approaches to the accomplishment of institutional goals. It is important to note, however, that this project is not intended as a national survey of staffing patterns, or as a survey of the characteristics of staffing patterns associated staffing with certain types of prisons. The institutional patterns which are presented provide examples of approaches to and illustrate various levels of staffing prisons and jails, staff deployment. However, the staffing statistics presented in Volume I, and the specific and detailed descriptions in Volume II, are intended as illustrations of specific approaches, and not Ultimately, as proof of the utility of these approaches. decisions about specific staffing patterns have to be based upon a specific analysis of the goals and tasks of each institution, and the levels of work generated by those tasks, rather than by reference to general guidelines or average situations. As the application of concepts of public administration and management 43 more generally applied and tested in the are field of corrections, perhaps more specific rules may evolve; and perhaps this report may serve as a starting point for such an effort. There are several interesting studies which are mentioned several times in this chapter. One is entitled "Staffing Guide for the Federal Prison System“, which was published in late 1980 as a general guide to the staffing patterns of institutions within the Federal Prison System. It is an excellent example of the application of a comparative methodology to the analysis of staffing patterns. It establishes expected levels of staff for various functions based upon the prevailing levels of staff at existing institutions, and based upon the recommendations of key managers within the institutions as to their needs for a reasonable level of institutional operation, but not an ideal one. Later in this chapter, these guidelines will be cited several times, to support or contrast the levels of staffing in the state and local institutions within this project. In such instances, the rates per 100 prisoners have been calculated according to the instructions in the manual for two hypothetical institutions, one with a capacity of 375, and one with a capacity of 950. There is an element of judgement involved due to differences in functional organization between federal, state, and local institutions, but the comparisions should be reasonably accurate. federal The manual observes that generally the institutions have fewer employees than many comparable state institutions. Another project is entitled "Comparision of Staffing in Maryland Correctional Facilities Having Over 500 Population With Those of Other States". It was developed by the Maryland Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning in December, 1980. It is a survey of the total staffing levels of prisons with capacities of greater than 500 prisoners. The specific observations will be discussed later in the chapter when total levels of staffing are compared. Two other studies are also cited. The first is American Prisons and Jails, Volume III, (Washington D.C., U.S. Government PrintingO f f i c e , 1980), authored by Joan Mullen and Bradford Smith. This survey focuses primarily upon prison and jail crowding, but also provides data on overall staffing levels of these facilities. The Center for Public Productivity at John Jay College of at the time of publication of Criminal Justice in New York City, this monograph, is completing a report entitled National Survey of Correctional Institution Employee Attrition Rates. Since the author of this monograph is also an author of the attrition project, data from that survey has been incorporated into this monograph at certain points. The data is based upon a survey of 200 state correctional institutions. 44 Institutions which have been included in this staffing monograph have been selected primarily so as to reflect a Generally, they are geographical and functional diversity. categorized in four ways: age, size, security, and jurisdiction. Older facilities are those constructed prior to 1950. Most of the newer ones have been constructed since 1975, and several In those instances, are still under construction at this time. the staffing information is based upon plans. In that tables newer facilities are identified by an included in this chapter, asterisk, as follows: "*". Large sized facilities are those with over 1000 prisoners, and smaller ones are those with less than 1000 prisoners. Security is divided into two categories: maximum-medium, and minimum. Maximum-medium security facilities are those which offer secure perimeters either by walls or fences, and which offer relatively secured internal conditions including cells or rooms in most instances. The minimum security units offer no physical perimeter security. Jurisdiction is either state or local. The local facilities are so functionally different from the state facilities that they are categorized separately. Generally, the staffing pattern statistics, and the detailed tables presented in Volume II, are developed based upon the operating documents of the institutions involved. However, there are several exceptions. The Federal institutions' patterns are based upon central office documents. The non-correctional officer positions are highly reliable and detailed. However, the officer posts are developed from documentation which was accurate, but somewhat less precise in description. Also, several facilities, including the Oak Park Heights unit and the new local facilities are based upon planned or recommended staffing patterns, not actual operational documents. B. REVIEW OF STAFFING LEVELS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY In Volume II, actual staffing patterns of the institutions discussed above are presented. The positions are divided into functional categories, so that positions associated with common This tasks can be compared from institution to institution. arrangement is also intended to provide a staff planner or specific evaluator with a systematic list of general and functions which can be used as a check in studying the adequacy of any given pattern of staff. This section will review each category of staff, and provide observations and guides specific to the types of tasks subsumed under each category. 1. ADMINISTRATION Those The administration category includes two types of positions: associated with the general leadership of the institution, 45 such as the executive office of the warden, and positions which provide services of a high level and general nature which cut across the remaining categories. Such positions would include public information, legal services to the institutional staff, or administrative planning. Within all tables included in this chapter, the "*" indicates an institution built since 1960. TABLE IV-l: ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTION POSITIONS % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 14.0 11.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 11.5 8.0 7.0 12.0 6.0 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.7 3.3 3.8 2.9 1.9 3.1 5.7 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.9 3.1 1.4 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 2.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 3.4 3.2 2.1 3.9 1.3 0.8 1.6 1.6 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION * MCC: NEW YORK * ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 7.0 13.0 15.0 8.0 7.0 9.0 5.9 4.8 5.3 4.0 4.6 3.1 4.4 2.1 3.0 1.9 3.6 2.3 160 630 495 416 192 400 SUMMARY CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 11.3 9.6 7.1 9.4 8.2 8.7 2.1 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.5 0.9 1.8 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.9 # OF CASES 3 8 9 9 11 20 MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH This table illustrates the levels of staff associated with administration for the institutions in the project. The approximate range is one to three positions per 100 prisoners. In the Federal Prison System Guide (FPS Guide), 2.1 positions per hundred prisoners are recommended for a 375 bed institution, and 0.9 per hundred for a 950 bed prison. The higher end of the range within the state institution sample tends to occur under the following conditions: Institutions which are not part of a 46 larger system, and which therefore provide for the functions of a general office, such as the Onandaga departmental administrative facility, tend to have higher needs. Institutions which have complex functions, such as a jail or a maximum security prison tend to have more staff. Smaller facilities tend to have higher rates, presumably level of positions need for a minimal the because of regardless of size. next table illustrates the clerical staff The level In the presentations, all the institutions. with associated clerical positions are shown with the functional areas served. This table permits an examination of total levels. TABLE IV-2 CLERICAL POSITIONS INSTITUTION MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 37.0 20.0 17.0 27.0 8.0 20.5 11.0 12.0 16.0 1.0 6.0 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 6.8 4.0 3.3 4.1 1.0 2.2 1.3 2.8 3.0 2.0 5.4 1.8 3.3 4.2 0.2 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 4.0 5.0 30.0 19.0 6.9 5.3 7.1 8.3 2.7 1.3 5.2 3.4 150 375 580 565 * * * 8.0 6.0 4.0 9.4 9.0 5.0 6.8 2.2 1.4 4.7 6.0 1.7 5.0 1.0 0.8 2.3 4.7 1.3 160 630 495 416 192 400 The patterns suggest that a normal level of clerical staff Lower levels suggest is about five percent of the total staff. officers perform correctional under-civilianization, where clerical functions which can be completed more efficiently and at lower cost by clerical employees, or simply levels of clerical staff which appear to be too low. 2. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 47 This category includes management support functions, as contrasted to operations support. Types of positions include and business office staff such as accountants, personnel staff, commissary employees. Functions such as mail processing are but are included here if the task is primarily logistical, included in correctional officer functions if the primary purpose is security. TABLE IV-3: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 29.0 34.0 16.0 21.0 5.0 17.0 15.0 8.0 14.0 1.0 4.7 7.4 4.2 4.0 3.3 5.7 5.4 2.2 3.6 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.7 2.3 1.3 4.5 2.5 2.2 3.7 0.2 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 6.0 11.0 19.0 21.0 10.3 11.6 4.5 9.2 4.0 2.9 3.3 3.7 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY 3.0 1.0 NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 9.0 NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION * 16.0 MCC: NEW YORK * 3.0 ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 6.0 2.5 0.4 3.2 8.1 2.0 2.1 1.9 0.2 1.8 3.8 1.6 1.5 160 630 495 416 192 400 SUMMARY CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 5.4 4.5 4.8 3.6 5.7 4.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.4 # OF CASES 3 8 9 9 11 20 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 28.0 12.3 8.1 11.9 13.5 12.8 The table for business management indicates some very stable rates and percentages, of about five percent of the total staff, and two to three positions per hundred prisoners. An examination of the specific tables suggests that the majority of the and fiscal are associated with the accounting positions management function. In the FPS Guide, 4.8 positions per hundred and 2.5 per hundred are recommended for a 375 bed institution, prisoners for a 950 bed institution. 48 3. SUPPORT OPERATIONS Support operations include logistical support functions such as food service, building and vehicle maintenance, and warehouse operation. The table suggests a range of levels of about ten percent of staff, and about four to seven positions per hundred prisoners. The FPS Guide suggests about 8.5 per hundred for a 375 bed institution, and 4.4 per hundred for a 950 bed institution, although several factors about a specific institution could modify this level. TABLE IV-4: SUPPORT OPERATIONS INSTITUTION 8 RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 46.0 76.0 29.0 47.0 12.0 22.0 41.0 38.0 70.0 11.0 7.4 16.6 7.6 8.9 7.8 7.3 14.8 10.5 18.0 10.5 2.7 5.1 4.8 5.2 3.0 5.8 6.8 10.6 18.4 2.6 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 6.0 21.0 46.8 31.0 10.3 22.1 11.1 13.5 4.0 5.6 8.1 5.5 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION * MCC: NEW YORK * ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 11.1 13.0 34.0 17.0 10.0 14.9 9.4 4.8 12.0 8.6 6.6 5.2 6.9 2.1 6.9 4.1 5.2 3.7 160 630 495 416 192 400 POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH SUMMARY # OF CASES CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 56.3 27.9 22.8 33.4 26.9 29.8 11.0 10.4 10.8 11.0 10.4 10.7 4.3 5.1 7.0 6.8 5.1 5.9 3 8 8 9 11 20 The age of a facility does not appear to be associated with higher or lower levels, suggesting perhaps that while older facilities have more maintenance problems, newer facilities have more space per prisoner or employee to be maintained. The FPS 49 Guide confirms this observation by providing for additional staff over a baseline level if an institution is built before 1940, or if it has a high level of gross square footage. As a rough guide, an additional employee is allowed for every 50,000 square feet over 300,000, and comparable deductions are made for less gross footage. Thus an older institution might lose staff because it has less footage per prisoner than a newer one with a comparable capacity, but it would gain two positions because of An examination of the actual staffing tables suggests its age. that the institutions with very high rates have greater levels of functional separation of staff types, than those with lower rates, even though the numbers of staff may be comparable. 4. PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Programs and services includes case management, education, work programs, recreation, and religion. This category varies markedly according to the function of the institution involved. There are generally six to eight employees per 100 prisoners, representing ten to fifteen percent of the total staff. The only clear distinction is that- local institutions have very few employees in these functions. TABLE IV-5 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES INSTITUTION POSITIONS % RATE CAPACITY MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1. * * * * * * 83.0 114.0 93.0 64.0 20.0 32.5 28.0 20.0 58.0 16.0 13.4 25.0 24.5 12.1 13.0 10.9 10.1 5.5 14.9 15.3 4.9 7.6 15.5 7.1 5.0 8.6 4.7 5.6 15.2 3.8 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 6.0 27.0 * 105.1 * 51.0 10.3 28.4 24.9 22.2 4.0 7.2 18.1 9.0 150 375 580 565 9.3 0.4 4.2 13.0 8.0 4.2 6.9 0.2 2.4 6.2 6.3 3.0 160 630 495 416 192 400 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION * MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY * NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 50 11.0 1.0 12.0 25.7 12.0 12.0 # OF CASES SUMMARY 87.0 41.5 22.1 42.0 37.6 39.6 CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 16.8 14.3 11.6 13.2 13.7 13.5 6.5 7.5 6.9 7.9 6.4 7.1 3 8 9 9 11 20 The FPS Guide suggests a level of 6.6 per hundred for the 375 bed institution, and 4.6 per hundred for the 950 bed institution, although it carefully observes that the actual levels for a specific institution would be determined by the specific activities of the prisoners and the mission of the the FPS Guide includes counselors In addition, institution. within the Unit Management function. For this project, the FPS figures were adjusted to show the movement of the counselors to the program category, so that the comparisons are more valid. following tables The staffing levels separately. illustrate industry and program TABLE IV-6: INDUSTRY INSTITUTION POSITIONS % RATE CAPACITY MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION 88.0 18.0 19.0 14.0 3.0 2.0 19.3 4.7 3.6 4.7 1.1 0.5 5.9 3.0 2.1 3.7 0.5 0.5 1493 600 900 380 600 381 MINIMUM SECURITY.... F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 12.0 4.0 8.0 12.6 0.9 3.5 3.2 0.7 1.4 375 580 565 1.0 0.5 0.2 416 LOCAL FACILITIES.... MCC: NEW YORK 51 TABLE IV-7: EDUCATION/VOTEC INSTITUTION POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * 33.0 25.0 38.0 8.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 28.0 11.0 5.3 5.5 10.0 1.5 2.6 1.7 2.9 7.2 10.5 1.9 1.7 6.3 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 7.3 2.6 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 381 420 * * 2.0 4.0 61.1 14.0 3.4 4.2 14.5 6.1 1.3 1.1 10.5 2.5 150 375 580 565 * * * 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 160 630 416 192 400 An examination of the specific staffing pattern presentations suggests some basic issues which determine levels of program and activity staff. Does the institution intend that each prisoner have a significant daily activity, or is a substantial portion of the population inactive? Does the education program offer a high degree of specialization, so that teachers with very specific skills are employed, or is the program more limited to general exists, education? To the extent that specialization especially in vocational training, high levels of staff may be required. The table showing education/votec positions by institution illustrates this. Both the MCF St. Cloud and the Vienna Correctional Center have large, specialized programs, which require high levels of staff. The industry table illustrates that where significant programs are operated, a range of three to six positions per hundred prisoners exists, translating to about six to twelve positions working in per hundred prisoners actually industries. Some institutions have lower levels because correctional officers assigned to industries supplement the industry workers' tasks, while other institutions have higher levels of industry workers and few correctional 52 officers. 5. MEDICAL AND TREATMENT Medical and treatment positions include mental health, drug abuse treatment professions, psychologists, as well as the traditional medical positions. These data should be interpreted with special caution, because each institution employs personnel under contract to varying extents, and uses services provided by other several institutions agencies. Thus, which show practically no medical staff actually have very good programs provided by external agencies. It was not possible to identify the level of time expended by these agencies on correctional medicine, as opposed to other medical services. TABLE IV-8: MEDICAL AND TREATMENT INSTITUTION POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES....ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % CAPACITY RATE * * * * * * 16.5 32.0 15.3 20.0 19.6 34.0 6.0 19.3 13.0 4.0 2.7 7.0 4.0 3.8 12.7 11.4 2.2 5.3 3.3 3.8 1.0 2.1 2.6 2.2 4.9 8.9 1.0 5.3 3.4 1.0 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 0.0 6.0 14.5 23.0 0.0 6.3 3.4 10.0 0.0 1.6 2.5 4.1 150 375 580 565 * * * 1.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 1.0 3.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.8 160 630 495 416 192 400 SUMMARY # OF CASES CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES As a general guide, 22.8 9.8 10.8 11.7 12.6 12.2 4.5 3.9 4.6 3.6 4.9 4.3 it appears that when an 53 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 3 8 9 9 11 20 institution provides medical services inhouse, or has been capable of showing external staff on the printouts in this report, a range of three Special five positions per hundred prisoners exists. to attention by medically competent individuals should be given to This is illustrated development of a medical staffing pattern. by the following tables: TABLE IV-9: MEDICAL INSTITUTION POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 11.0 21.0 6.0 14.0 17.6 12.5 2.0 12.8 9.0 1.0 1.8 4.6 1.6 2.7 11.4 4.2 0.7 3.5 2.3 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 1.6 4.4 3.3 0.3 3.5 2.4 0.2 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 2.0 10.5 15.0 2.1 2.5 6.5 0.5 1.8 2.7 375 580 565 * * * 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 160 630 495 416 192 400 TABLE IV-l0: MENTAL HEALTH POSITIONS INSTITUTION MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... F.P.C. ALLENWOOD F.C.I. FORT WORTH 54 RATE % CAPACITY * * * * * * 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.7 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 3.9 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * 4.0 4.0 4.2 1.7 1.1 0.7 375 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL * MCC: NEW YORK * ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 There are several reasons why it is probable that a level of staff may be required for prisoners than comparable number of citizens in the general public: 160 416 192 400 higher for a Prisoners tend, as a group, to have more medical problems than average citizens. This is because many of them never took good care of their health prior to going to prison. Thus, the workload per medical employee will be higher for a prisoner population than for a comparably sized group of non-prisoners. Working in prison can tend to be somewhat inefficient, because of the coordination of functional activities with security imperatives, As a result, medical staff may not be able to see patients as efficiently as on the outside, because of the need to escort prisoners brought to them, or the need for the medical staff to go to the units to see the prisoners. Prisoners tend to fake illness, or show a great degree of interest and concern for relatively minor symptoms. As a result, a greater amount of time may be expended in diagnosing and screening cases than would be expended with a group of citizens. The FPS Guide is generally consistent with the levels observed in the state institutions, suggesting about 3.5 medical employees per hundred prisoners. The Guide suggests, however, that several medically specialized institutions must be considered as separate cases. The Guide also assumes that some services are provided under external contracts. Thus, use of this Guide, or the guidelines from the state institutions should only be done in the context of a more detailed study by medically competent officials. 6. CONTROL POINTS The following table illustrates observed staffing levels for correctional officer control stations and supervisory posts. 55 TABLE IV-11: CONTROL POINTS INSTITUTION POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 77.2 37.9 44.9 31.9 15.7 24.1 37.7 45.7 37.5 21.3 12.5 8.3 11.8 6.0 10.2 8.0 13.6 12.6 9.6 20.3 4.5 2.5 7.5 3.5 3.9 6.3 6.3 12.7 9.8 5.1 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 8.7 10.9 44.0 19.5 15.0 11.5 10.4 8.5 5.8 2.9 7.6 3.5 150 375 580 565 * * * 12.1 65.0 36.2 27.7 16.8 36.7 10.2 24.1 12.8 14.0 11.2 12.7 7.6 10.3 7.3 6.7 8.8 9.2 160 630 495 416 192 400 # OF CASES SUMMARY 49.0 37.0 23.1 32.9 32.3 32.6 CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 8.9 14.4 11.2 12.9 11.6 12.2 3.5 6.8 7.4 7.1 6.1 6.6 3 8 9 9 11 20 are reserved for and those which follow, This category, The functions generally completed by correctional officers. control points category includes general security leadership, and fixed posts supporting overall leadership such as a control center, and posts which primarily control or supervise movement within a facility. Generally, it appears that about twelve to fifteen percent of the staff is associated with such functions, In larger or approximately seven officers per hundred prisoners. institutions, the rates are somewhat lower. 7. PERIMETER SECURITY The following table illustrates observed levels of staffing to provide for perimeter security. 56 TABLE IV-12: PERIMETER SECURITY INSTITUTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 46.5 43.0 17.6 36.2 10.4 8.4 37.1 26.4 53.7 24.8 7.5 9.4 4.6 6.9 6.8 2.8 13.4 7.3 13.8 23.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 4.0 2.6 2.2 6.2 7.3 14.1 5.9 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 0.0 0.0 9.9 9.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.6 150 375 580 565 * * * 3.4 0.0 6.9 12.6 5.1 5.5 2.9 0.0 2.4 6.4 3.4 1.9 2.1 0.0 1.4 3.0 2.6 1.4 160 630 495 416 192 400 41.9 14.8 12.5 20.6 15.6 17.8 7.9 7.1 4.3 8.0 4.3 6.0 3.2 2.9 3.6 4.2 2.5 3.2 # OF CASES 3 8 9 9 11 20 POSITIONS MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION SUMMARY CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES Perimeter security posts are towers, entrance posts for both public, prisoners, and materials, and roving patrol posts. Generally, unless a facility is minimum security, three to six positions per hundred prisoners are devoted to this function. Older facilities appear to devote greater levels of staff to this function, reflecting the trend in modern institutions away from towers, towards electronic surveillance with either single towers or roving patrols, or designs where the shell of the facility is the perimeter. 8. UNIT SUPERVISION Unit supervision includes posts associated with housing units, such as officers who work cellruns, or operate doors or gates to cells or rooms. This is a very important category of staffing because it constitutes one-fifth to one-third of all institutional staff. In general, between ten and twenty 57 positions per hundred prisoners are devoted to this function. -There is great variation in levels, however, reflecting a diversity of operating concepts and standards for units. The FPS Guide suggests a unit staffing level of about 3.5 employees Per hundred prisoners, or 4.5 if case managers within the housing The highest possible level, units are included. for a very specialized small unit, would be 7 per hundred prisoners. TABLE IV-13: UNIT SUPERVISION POSITIONS INSTITUTION MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. * * * * * * MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 12.0 8.6 * 135.6 * 35.6 99.5 60.5 108.5 186.2 49.3 113.3 63.9 161.6 97.0 15.1 % RATE 5.9 4.1 18.1 20.7 12.3 29.8 10.6 44.9 25.5 3.6 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 20.6 8.0 9.1 2.3 32.1 23.4 15.5 6.3 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 53.9 133.5 NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION' NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION 85.9 * 52.6 MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY * 66.2 NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 106.0 45.6 49.5 30.3 26.5 43.9 36.7 33.7 21.2 17.3 12.6 34.5 26.5 160 630 495 416 192 400 SUMMARY CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 21.5 27.5 32.8 31.6 26.9 29.0 10.2 14.1 24.2 20.7 15.9 18.1 # OF CASES 3 8 9 9 11 20 115.4 78.8 74.2 82.1 82.3 82.2 16.1 13.3 28.5 35.3 32.1 37.8 23.1 44.7 24.9 14.4 CAPACITY This is the greatest area of contrast between the FPS recommendations and the observed conditions within the state A comparison between the federal and state institutions. institutions in the sample suggests that this guideline is In reasonably accurate as it applies to federal operations. 221 unit officers supervise those institutions taken together, for a rate of 6.4 This is comparable to their 3449 prisoners, Guide, but not comparable to the state operations. The following is a selection of concepts which the author has observed: 58 TABLE IV-14: UNIT SUPERVISION STAFFING MODELS MODEL INTERMITTENT INTERNAL EXTERNAL PAIR DOUBLE BACKUP TRIPLE BACKUP NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER ROVING TYPICAL RATES 0 0 1 1 1 1 LT-1 1 LT-1 1 2 3 5 8 10 15 20 25 The rates are estimated based upon a unit of about 30 prisoners. In a smaller unit of 15-20 prisoners, the rate would double, and in a larger unit of 50-100 prisoners, the rate would halve. The unit staffing concepts presented above are based upon the following operating concepts and assumptions: The INTERMITTENT model assumes that no staff is specifically assigned to the housing unit. An officer intermittently observes the housing unit, generally from outside of the unit, to ascertain whether any unusual incidents have occurred. This pattern is often found in jails and in minimum security institutions. While it does result in a very low number of employees devoted to unit supervision, it provides for a very poor level of supervision. It is practically impossible to provide for any control of prisoner behavior with this system. If the units are very large, then counts of prisoners are also difficult. The INTERNAL model places an officer within the housing unit, without a backup officer capable of observing him or her from a secure location. This is a reasonably adequate level of staffing if the prisoners within the unit behave reliably, or if the prisoners are secure in cells or rooms while the unit is staffed this way. A form of backup can be provided with electronic communication systems, provided that the communication can be initiated by the officer, and does not rely on someone else to notice a problem such as would be the case with a close circuit television surveillance backup system. The problem with cctv in this instance is that there are behaviors which are dangerous to the officer which the cctv would not pick up, such as a threatened action as opposed to an actual one. Realistically, if the population within the unit is potentially dangerous, the intermittent model should not be used unless the prisoners are secured in their cells. The EXTERNAL model calls for continuous observation from outside of the unit, with intermittent tours of inspection by an officer inside of the unit, while that officer is observed by the officer assigned to the outside. The external model is intended to be a safer situation for the 59 supervision of a more dangerous population while they are outside of their cells in dayspace areas. However, this author is of the opinion that it is generally preferable to use a system which places one or more officers inside of the The assignment of officers to routinely unit at all times. external unit posts creates an "us versus them" mentality between officers and prisoners, and does not enable a rapid response to any internal problems on the unit. It also tends to limit the role of the officer to inspection functions. The PAIRED model assumes one officer outside in a secure and another inside the unit with the prisoners. location, This model provides for an officer within the unit to not but also to interact with and lead the only supervise, prisoners. Besides enabling a broader range of supervisory behaviors by the officer, the assignment of officers to posts within units may provides an atmosphere which would also encourage non-correctional officer staff to deal with prisoners within the units, because officer supervision is To the extent that case readily available within the unit. management meetings, medical screenings and other staff less officer time is contacts can occur on the units, expended escorting prisoners to and from off-unit meetings. The DOUBLE-BACKUP model assumes two officers within the unit and one outside. Thus, each officer within the unit is backed up by two other officers, one inside and one outside. This allows for a broader and stronger response to any problems on the unit, but also results in a probable staff rate which is higher than the typical rates for institutions in this study. The feasibility of this model would depend upon the size of the unit to be supervised. If housing units are relatively large, with over 75 prisoners per unit, then model would be economically the double back-up It might also be desirable from practical for many prisons. a supervision standpoint for more difficult populations. The TRIPLE BACKUP model is used in some more complex facilities. The basic goal of this model is to visually chain officers from the external control station to the end of the unit, with the number of officers within the unit determined by the number of officer locations needed to or officers not visible to other eliminate blind areas, officers. As a result, the average officer can see two other officers, and is also backed up by the control station. Thus, the term triple backup evolves. 9. INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD This category includes the supervision of program and work areas, as well as the supervision of general areas such as a this appears to require a range of central yard. In general, about five to ten officers per hundred prisoners. 60 TABLE IV-15: INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD INSTITUTION POSITIONS % RATE CAPACITY MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY 200.3 36.0 U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD 45.2 100.2 IOWA s. P. FORT MADISON * OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. 13.9 MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS * 22.0 * 20.8 U.S.P. MARION * 30.6 VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. f 25.0 MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION * 4.3 S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.C. 32.3 11.8 7.9 2.4 11.9 7.5 19.0 11.1 9.0 3.5 7.3 5.8 7.5 3.5 8.5 8.5 6.4 6.6 4.1 1.0 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH * * 15.7 6.6 36.9 22.3 27.0 7.0 8.7 9.7 10.5 1.8 6.4 4.0 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION * MCC: NEW YORK * ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 14.7 42.2 80.9 8.0 26.2 94.1 12.5 9.2 15.6 6.7 28.5 16.3 4.0 1.9 17.4 13.6 32.6 23.5 160 630 495 416 192 400 SUMMARY 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 # OF CASES CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 112.2 32.6 27.7 25.3 56.2 42.3 19.7 11.3 14.2 9.7 17.2 13.9 8.4 5.9 9.2 6.1 9.1 7.8 There are several factors which influence the officers required: numbers 3 8 9 9 11 20 of Some facilities, such as the MCC in New York, confine most the As a result, prisoner activity to the housing unit. levels of staffing for activity supervision are low, since programs and recreation are supervised by unit staff. Minimum security units often use the non-officer staff for whatever supervision may be required. in a small Thus, factory, the forman may function both as a task leader as well as a supervisor from a security perspective. 10. EXTERNAL AND OTHER This category covers external functions such as movement to 61 The actual positions for each other institutions or to court. institution vary significantly so that no meaningful observations can be made about this category. 11. TOTAL POSITIONS The total numbers of positions vary from about 25 per which means that there are more staff, for hundred to over 100, all shifts taken together, than prisoners. TABLE IV-16: TOTAL POSITIONS INSTITUTION POSITIONS % RATE CAPACITY MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. * * * * * * MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 58.2 95.1 * 422.9 * 229.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 38.8 25.4 72.9 40.6 150 375 580 565 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 118.1 269.9 283.8 * 198.2 * 150.7 * 288.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 73.8 42.8 57.3 47.7 78.5 72.1 160 630 495 416 192 400 619.2 456.7 380.2 527.2 153.8 299.3 276.8 361.5 388.8 104.7 100.0 36.4 100.0 30.6 100.0 63.4 100.0 58.6 100.0 38.4 100.0 78.8 100.0 46.1 100.0 100.4 100.0 102.0 100.0 24.9 SUMMARY 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 # OF CASES CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 534.4 270.8 212.7 276.4 290.5 284.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 41.9 49.5 67.6 61.2 52.7 56.5 Several All facilities together had a rate of 56. were associated with levels of staff lower than 56: 3 8 9 9 11 20 factors Newer facilities used slightly fewer positions than older ones, although in the three instances where old and new institutions were presented from the same systems, the newer 62 facilities require higher levels of staff than the older There are some differences as to function of facilities. which account for increased staff facilities the newer levels in certain functional categories, but not to such an extent as to explain the overall differences. Larger facilities, as one might expect, have lower rates, although the rates seem to be lower for all functions. rather than being more efficient with respect to Thus, it appears that the larger facilities "overhead functions", and services to their provide less supervision, programs, they are not Thus, than the smaller ones. populations inherently more efficient than smaller ones. Presumably the smaller ones could operate with the lower levels of staff if they also provided the lower levels of supervision and services. The FPS Guide does not provide a general observation as to overall staffing levels, because the numbers of correctional officers are determined, in part, by facility characteristics. The Maryland survey of prisons with capacities of greater than 500 provided data to support several specific observations: hundred The average institution had 32 employees per prisoners, which compares to the finding in this project of 33 for the institutions with over 800 prisoners. There were 19.8 correctional officers per hundred prisoners, as compared to the finding in this project of 26.5 for the larger institutions, and 36.4 overall. In the Maryland project, the lowest statewide staffing level was found in Texas, with 11 employees per hundred prisoners, and the highest in Massachusetts, with 59. American Prisons and Jails (Mullen & Smith, reports 1980) the following median staffing rates according to region and jurisdiction (Mullen & Smith, p.99 & 102): TABLE IV-17 TOTAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAFFING BY REGION AND JURISDICTION JURISDICTION LOCAL (CO'S ONLY) STATE (CO'S ONLY) N. EAST N. CENTRAL 33 29 22 24 SOUTH WEST TOTAL 18 20 15 20 20 24 The following is a summary of staffing rates for 162 institutions responding to the National Survey of Correctional Institution Employee Attrition Rates. 63 TABLE IV-18: A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF CATEGORICAL STAFFING RATES STAFF TYPE INSTITUTION TYPE PRERELEASE LOWER SECURITY ALL SMALL---- LARGE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT LINE OFFICERS SUPERV. OFFICERS PROGRAM OTHER 2 7 12 3 2 1 5 6 21 5 7 1 3 10 26 3 7 1 HIGHER SECURITY SMALL-----LARGE 4 9 29 6 7 2 TOTAL CASES TOTAL 2 6 20 2 4 2 3 7 21 4 5 2 37 (47) 40 (162) The total rate for correctional officers is consistent with that presented in American Prisons and Jails, as their finding of 24 is quite close to the finding in the attrition survey project of for a 21 for line officers and four for supervisory officers, comparable total of 25. It is also very close to the finding of 26.5 for the institutions presented specifically in this report. The next table illustrates the deployment of correctional officers by type of post or function, for the institutions in the previous table: TABLE Vl-19: OFFICER DEPLOYMENT BY TYPE OF POST POST TYPE INSTITUTION TYPE PRERELEASE LOWER SECURITY ALL SMALL---- LARGE COMBINED CO RATE PERIMETER UNITS PROGRAM SUPERVISION CONTROL POINTS EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS OTHER HIGHER SECURITY SMALL-----LARGE TOTAL ALL 15 26 29 34 22 24 2.9 6.0 1.2 1.8 0.4 2.7 0.5 11.2 2.6 5.2 2.1 4.4 4.0 6.7 10.3 3.5 0.5 4.0 6.5 15.6 6.1 1.7 1.7 2.4 3.7 8.6 4.6 1.8 0.7 2.7 3.8 9.1 5.3 2.1 0.7 3.0 There are several observations which can be made based upon the tables which presented data on combined staff rates. Facility size does not appear to have a clear and consistent relationship intensity. with staffing For example, prerelease centers appeared to be authorized fewer staff than more conventional institutions, but economy of largerscale operation appeared to operate only in the larger high security category of institution (table 14). Institutional size appeared to achieve lower staff intensity in both security categories only for administrative staff and correctional supervisors (table 14). 64 c. APPENDIX TABLES The final set of tables illustrates the staffing patterns by shift. This is a more realistic view of the staffing patterns as and also eliminates differences in they would actually function, levels of total staffing which are due to differences in coverage factors. Additional tables include a summary of the "External and groupings of positions in broad and Other" positions, categories. This chapter has presented some specific observations about institutional of areas functional levels of staffing organizations. Most readers will find the tables which follow to be sufficiently detailed to meet their needs. However, if one is completing a specific study of a staffing pattern, it is as it provides a position suggested that Volume II be obtained, by position summary for each institution. 65 TABLE IV-20 ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY 71 4 106 7 U.S.P. ATLANTA 54 9 MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD 64 7 IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. 22 6 MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS 46 12 U.S.P. MARION 52 9 35 10 VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION 73 19 17 4 S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. EVE # R NITE # R TOTL # R 5 5 10 4 0 5 5 6 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 8 28 8 60 10 51 9 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 14 9 35 9 75 13 61 11 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 17 11 NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 22 3 NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION 37 8 37 9 MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY 17 9 NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 24 6 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 27 58 41 20 30 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 66 89 121 54 77 22 51 64 53 96 18 5 8 9 9 6 13 11 15 25 4 13 4 12 10 10 7 TABLE IV-21 MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT NITE # R DAY # R TOTL # R MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY 94 6 U.S.P. ATLANTA 136 9 MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD 96 16 IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON 79 9 OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. 30 8 MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS 41 11 U.S.P. MARION 34 6 VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. 27 7 MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION 62 16 S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. 20 5 1 2 18 1 3 15 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 100 146 108 84 40 67 34 39 71 20 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 0 1 22 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 4 33 9 120 21 74 13 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8 1 0 12 2 42 10 13 7 15 4 6 4 30 8 93 16 68 12 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 12 NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 1 NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION 10 MCC: NEW YORK 35 ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY 13 NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 9 67 8 0 2 8 7 2 6 10 18 9 10 18 6 11 19 5 TABLE IV-22 UNIT OFFICERS STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT NITE # R DAY # R TOTL # R MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. 21 1 13 1 46 8 45 5 13 3 32 8 16 3 37 10 25 7 6 1 18 1 12 1 38 6 38 4 12 3 28 7 12 2 37 10 20 5 3 1 16 12 16 27 6 12 12 18 11 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 5 3 0 99 61 109 186 49 113 64 162 97 15 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 3 3 28 13 2 1 5 2 3 2 28 6 2 1 5 1 3 1 26 5 2 0 4 1 12 8 9 2 136 23 36 6 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 14 9 28 4 17 3 15 4 23 12 26 7 11 33 17 10 18 21 7 5 3 2 9 5 7 17 13 8 7 11 4 3 3 2 4 3 54 134 86 53 66 106 68 6 4 18 21 12 30 11 45 25 4 34 21 17 13 34 26 TABLE IV-23 OTHER OFFICERS STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R NITE # R MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. 121 7 43 3 38 6 64 7 18 5 16 4 39 7 42 12 38 10 18 4 58 24 29 38 14 22 24 13 23 8 3 2 5 4 4 6 4 4 6 2 13 16 7 12 9 4 12 12 13 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 14 8 43 30 9 2 7 5 3 2 19 9 2 1 3 2 1 2 8 2 1 1 1 0 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 15 33 41 23 18 37 9 5 8 6 9 9 6 24 34 11 11 33 4 4 7 3 6 8 3 10 9 6 4 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 69 TOTL # R 331 129 109 180 43 69 115 108 125 52 19 9 18 20 11 18 19 30 33 12 26 17 19 5 93 16 59 10 31 108 128 63 51 138 20 17 26 15 27 34 TABLE VI-24 TOTAL STAFF STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT NITE # R DAY # R TOTL # R MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. 306 299 234 252 83 135 141 141 197 61 18 20 39 28 21 36 23 39 52 14 82 44 94 81 29 70 41 61 53 12 5 3 16 9 7 18 7 17 14 3 34 32 31 40 15 21 25 33 28 7 2 2 5 4 4 5 4 9 7 2 619 457 380 527 154 299 277 362 389 105 36 31 63 59 38 79 46 ** ** 25 MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH 35 69 224 162 23 18 39 29 7 5 7 2 73 13 20 4 4 5 38 10 3 1 7 2 58 95 423 229 39 25 73 41 LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 58 NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 84 NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION 105 MCC: NEW YORK 110 ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY 71 NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 96 36 13 21 27 37 24 18 59 58 24 30 58 11 27 24 16 12 22 7 4 5 4 6 6 118 74 270 43 284 57 198 48 151 78 289 72 70 11 9 12 6 16 15 TABLE IV-20: EXTERNAL AND OTHER STAFF POSITIONS INSTITUTION MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY.... NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY U.S.P. ATLANTA MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS U.S.P. MARION VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. MINIMUM SECURITY.... N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER F.C.I. FORT WORTH LOCAL FACILITIES.... ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION MCC: NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION % RATE CAPACITY * * * * * * 7.2 12.3 1.7 11.7 3.0 14.6 19.4 5.0 8.7 1.3 1.2 2.7 0.4 2.2 2.0 4.9 7.0 1.4 2.2 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.8 3.8 3.2 1.4 2.3 0.3 1700 1493 600 900 400 380 600 360 381 420 * * 1.7 1.0 2.0 7.8 3.0 1.1 0.5 3.4 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.4 150 375 580 565 * * * 1.0 1.2 3.9 14.6 3.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.4 7.4 2.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.8 3.5 1.8 0.3 160 630 495 416 192 .lOO # OF CASES SUMMARY 10.4 6.5 4.4 7.1 5.4 6.1 CAPACITY OVER 800 400-800 CAPACITY CAPACITY UNDER 400 OLDER FACILITIES NEWER FACILITIES ALL FACILITIES 71 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 3 8 9 9 11 20 CHAPTER FIVE IMPLEMENTATION A. INTRODUCTION In this final chapter of the first volume, we return to a major original goal of this project: assisting managers in the planning and evaluation of staffing levels. The review of approaches provided in previous chapters illustrates a variety of in prisons and methods to conduct such evaluations. However, several of these approaches will be more jails as they are, immediately useful than the others. These are TASK ANALYSIS and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. There are several reasons for this: Jobs are so variable, and consist of so many different tasks economically would be and Time Study Motion that impractical. By the time a "best method" was precisely defined for a task, the task would be slightly changed, and the analysis would be invalidated. non-labor when auditing is more useful Productivity f o are to be substituted machines, resources, such as institutions. labor. This is not highly feasible in real Even such originally promising concepts as closed circuit television surveillance have generally only succeeded in displacing staff from prisoner contact areas to control resulting in a diminished capacity to respond to stations, incidents which are detected. The methodology presented the later in this chapter will permit analysis of substitution of equipment for labor, but not as a central feature of the method. are highly Analysis and Process Outcome Analysis individualized methods, depending upon the situation to be a general evaluated or the standard to be applied. Thus, method for such approaches is difficult to specify. Therefore, this chapter will focus primarily upon task analysis and comparative analysis, with some application of productivity auditing. These two methods are highly applicable to they apply easily prisons and jails for several reasons. First, which constitute the majority of the to personnel resources, resources expended in prisons and jails. Second, they are highly different methods, so that the results of one approach can be used as a check on the other. After carefully reading this chapter, you should be able to conduct a simple, yet complete analysis of the staffing level of a program or function within an institution. 73 r B. PLANNING AND EVALUATING STAFF LEVELS: A MULTIPLE METHODS APPROACH The basic purpose of this report is to assist officials who must either develop staffing patterns for new institutions, or evaluate current staffing patterns for existing institutions. This section suggests and describes an approach to such projects. Any problem solving method should occur at a scale which corresponds to the problem. Thus, the development of a complete staffing pattern for a new institution deserves a decisionmaking process which allows for participation by several levels of such as budgetary management, as well as outside parties, agencies, which will ultimately influence final decisions about funding and approval. However, more limited problems, such as whether to hire another employee for a certain unit, might not require such a complex and lengthy process. One or two officials with awareness of the problems, and authority to act could meet, decide, and implement a course of action. The steps described here could, depending upon the size and complexity of the problem, be completed as a mental process by one person, or could be completed as a complex organizational planning method involving many officials inside and outside of an organization over a period of months. For many situations, the and forms presented below are specific example, procedures, appropriate and sufficient. The following are six steps planning and evaluating a staffing followed only as elements of a improve the accuracy of subsequent which should be followed in pattern. Even if the steps are mental process, they should decisions. The first step is to DEFINE ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND This might be as thorough and complex as an PRIORITIES. institutional mission statement or master plan, or as simple as a list of functions of a records unit. In developing a list of such goals, however, the following guidelines are suggested: Goals should stated behaviorally rather than conceptually. An example of a behavioral goal statement would be "to assure that all prisoners can read at a sixth grade level", as compared to "to provide adequate general educational services". A large organization would generate many goal statements, while a small department or office within an organization might require only five to ten. Priorities can be identified either as rankings of the goals, or as levels within each goal. An example of a level within a goal would be "as a minimum objective, to assure that prisoners read at the sixth grade level, and as a to read at the tenth grade level." If desirable objective, priority levels are the same for each goal, then it is 74 possible to identify the resource levels to meet all goals and then to identify the levels at a minimal level, necessary to meet higher priorities. The second step is to IDENTIFY TASKS AND STANDARDS for each goal. Meeting a goal requires that specific tasks be completed, such as escorting a prisoner from one place to another, or filing a record. The level of detail in defining tasks would be determined by the specific method used for later analysis. A variety of methods are suggested and discussed in Chapter Two of this report. The purpose of identifying standards is to determine what level of task completion completes the goal. It is important to emphasize here the importance of facility design and technology in the determination of the specific tasks to be accomplished. An analysis of this can be especially important when a facility is being designed. The third step is to MEASURE THE TASKS, AND THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO MEET THEM. A very specific example would be the and one following: There are 1000 records to be filed per day, person can file an average of 200 records per day. A more general example would be that there will be an average of 100 students and one teacher for the education program on an average day, should have a class size of between twenty and thirty. The fourth step is the DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED, AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. Based upon an assessment, for each goal, of the numbers of tasks to be completed and the employees needed to accomplish given numbers of tasks, the specific number of employees needed for each goal area can be defined. The material in the final chapters of this report should be a source of comparative information about many areas of institutional operation. The fifth step is to ORGANIZE THE STAFF. Such organization would include both hierarchical structures such as a chain of command, as well as shift patterns. Chapter Three discusses and provides illustrations of to organize staff, methods organizational structures and shift patterns. The final step is to DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM. It is unlikely that an initial staffing As proposals are recommendation will be entirely correct. implemented, processes to continue to measure tasks completed, as provide well as the ultimate result of the tasks completed, information allow subsequent readjustment of staffing levels. The expression "multiple methods approach" has been selected as a label for this method because it should be more than a There is a sequence of six steps to the sequence of steps. approach -- from defining goals and priorities to implementing an evaluation strategy -- but the completion of each step should include use of more than one method of analysis. The use of several methods is supported by experience in social science 75 in Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive research, Webb et al., Research In The Social Sciences (Chicago, Rand McNally, 1966) have observed: Once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more independent measurement processes, the uncertainty of its interpretation is greatly reduced. The most persuasive measurement evidence comes through a triangulation of processes. If a proposition can survive the onslaught of a series of imperfect measures, with all their irrelevant error, confidence should be placed in it. (p. 3) To the extent that the field of management has developed methods of defining correct numbers of employees to conduct tasks, or appropriate organizational arrangements for their deployment and supervision, the level of accuracy is often directly associated with the level of cost and time required to get answers. As a result, staffing decisions have to be made on the basis of incomplete information. The use of several methods to estimate the solution to a problem can sometimes be the next best approach. A selection of specific staff analysis methods are described in Chapter Two. An example of a multiple methods approach would involve using two methods at each step in the planning process described above. For example, a task analysis approach might be used first, and then a comparative approach might be used second. The second approach would serve as a check on the first. Using task analysis and comparative approaches together is especially effective because they are very different methods, and rely on different sources of information as a basis for conclusions. The multiple methods should be used at each phase in the process. In defining goals and priorities, task analysis would call for specific statements based upon the intended purposes of the institution. Comparative analysis would call for goal statements of other institutions which seem to be comparable. In identifying tasks and standards, task analysis would call for the description of the specific tasks involved in the process of achieving the goals. Comparative analysis would call for information about the tasks completed by comparable institutions in meeting their goals. The end result is that conclusions are based both upon a specific analysis of the functions of the institution under study, but also upon a comparison to other institutions. C. EXAMPLE The following is an example of a multiple methods approach to staff analysis, examining the number of counselors needed for a hypothetical institution. This example was selected because it provides a relatively simple and clear illustration of the method. Forms are used which are included as blanks at the end of the chapter. This permits managers to copy the forms and use them in actual situations. 76 This will be a hypothetical situation, because no single actual situation clearly illustrates most of the points which need explanation. Our example is an institution with an average population of 400, and a staff of 200, of whom 8 are counselors. The counseling staff appears to be overworked, and is doing poor quality work, and not completing many tasks. In preparation for a an analysis is to be made to determine the added budget request, number of counselors, if any, which might be needed. The of less than institution has a relatively short length of stay, one year. An average of forty prisoners are received each month, and an equal number are discharged or transferred, with ten to fifteen prisoners seeing the Parole Board each month. The mission of the institution includes a responsibility to provide both classification and counseling services. The Warden would like to improve the counseling services which are minimal at this point. As stated in the previous section, the first step is to DEFINE ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES. In this example, there are four overall goals to the counseling program: 1) 3) assisting in 2) answering questions, maintaining records, prisoner classification, and 4) counseling prisoners. The for achievement of these goals vary, priorities and two alternative priority levels will be illustrated later. The second step is to IDENTIFY TASKS following are the tasks for each goal: AND STANDARDS. The intake MAINTAIN RECORDS, counselors must develop To summaries for each incoming prisoner, and develop a parole summary for each one considered for parole. To ANSWER QUESTIONS, counselors must respond to mail and they must respond to inquiries about prisoners, questions by each prisoner. To ASSIST IN PRISONER CLASSIFICATION, participate in classification interviews. counselors must counselors must conduct monthly To COUNSEL PRISONERS, interview sessions with each prisoner, and they must conduct weekly counseling sessions with prisoners who need and request such sessions. It should be noted that these are simplified sets of goals and tasks. In a real prison or jail, more goals and tasks might be identified, but the essential process would be the same. The third step is to MEASURE THE TASKS. On the following and "2 TASK forms labeled "1 TIME ALLOWANCE ANALYSIS", pages, are presented. These forms are used to FREQUENCY ANALYSIS", measure the time required to complete the tasks which constitute a job, and to measure the number of times these tasks must be completed during an hour, day or week. 77 1 TIME ALLOWANCE ANALYSIS TASK CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 average time METHODS Classification interviews 6.0 4.5 18.5 10.3 3.0 24.0 11.0 Intake summaries 40.0 70.0 130.0 85.0 125.0 75.0 88.0 Monthly 30.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 28.0 110.0 18.0 4.0 12.0 20.0 25.0 31.0 40.0 120.0 90.0 40.0 30.0 75.0 66.0 6.0 20.0 4.0 22.0 12.0 18.0 14.0 50.0 72.0 40.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 52.0 25.0 80.0 35.0 100.0 35.0 85.0 60.0 3.0 10.0 9.0 2.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 45.0 37.0 19.0 15.0 41.0 23.0 30.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 9.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 interviews Respond to mail Parole summaries Respond to inquiries Counseling ALTERNATE sessions METHODS Intake summaries with computer Respond to mail with word processor Develop parole summaries with word processor Respond to inquiries with computer 78 TASK time period Classification interviews 1 day 2 10 6 Intake summaries 1 day 1 0 1 Monthly 1 day 2 2 3 Respond to mail 1 day 10 7 8 Parole summaries 1 day C 0 0.3 Inquiries 1 day 10 5 7 Counseling 1 day 2 1 1 interviews # # 79 Average number The first form lists each task, and shows the time, in minutes, to complete each task, in six separate measurements. The column on the far right shows the average amount of time required in minutes. The form could be completed to complete each task, measuring time in larger increments, such as five to ten minutes, or hours, although minutes are more accurate. On the example form, classification interviews took an average of eleven minutes and intake summaries took an average of eighty-eight each, minutes to complete. A variation in the use of this form would be to conduct time measurements of several alternative methods of completing a task, so that the most efficient method could be used later in the process. This would be especially important if the substitution of equipment for labor is under consideration. In the example form, word processors and a computer terminal to the prisoner record system-have been introduced and evaluated, and task completion times for intake summaries were reduced from 88 minutes to 30 minutes, responding to mail from 14 minutes to 6 minutes, etc. The use of these measurements will be illustrated later. Another variation would be to compare the time to complete a task by trained and experienced employees, contrasted with inexperienced employees. This would enable the establishment of time standards which could be used in the promotion or extraordinary reward of employees, and might also permit the determination of the precise value of training and experience in job performance. An important consideration in timing work is to define adequate performance of a task. Usually, the time required to redo a task to correct error is included in the original time to do it in the first instance. Thus, a job which took six minutes to do originally, and four more minutes to would be considered to have taken ten minutes to correct, complete. An alternative approach is to total the amount of time taken to do the tasks, but divide it (to determine the average time per task) by the number of tasks completed correctly. This method is appropriate if defective task completions are discarded, rather than corrected. In using this method, however, more than six samples of work completion should be completed. A rule of thumb would be to sample completions until five rejections have occurred. This assures that rejections are properly represented in the estimates. Another approach is to sample the time to complete the tasks correctly. Then count the number of correct completions and errors in fifty attempts. Then multiply the correct completion time by the number of correct completions and divide by fifty. This method will work unless errors take much longer than correct completions. A final suggestion is to measure task completion times when the employee is working at a normal rate, not at a hurried 80 rate. The rate should be sufficiently relaxed that the employee could realistically keep it up for a full working day. A major source of error in these types of studies is to develop overoptimistic estimates of work rates. The second form is a tally of the number of times each task was completed over three separate one-day measures. The form could be filled out over a period of a week or month, or could be filled out retroactively for a month or year in the past. Again, the column on the extreme right provides the average number of times each task was completed over the time period studied. Both of these forms can be completed by the employee whose job is being studied. Sometimes this increases the acceptance of It also adds another task to the list the results of the study. -- filling out these forms -- however, this should not take too and tends to slightly bias the results in favor of the long, employee. This is useful to point out should employees complain about completion of the forms. In the example, classification interviews averaged six per more It should be noted that sometimes, day per counselor. objective information about the frequency of tasks can be the number of parole obtained from other sources. For example, summaries to be completed could be determined by the number of prisoners to be considered for parole. This might be a more reliable method of estimation of the frequency of this task, for example, the management is aware of possible especially if, factors in the future which would increase or decrease that Thus, if the frequency of a task can be objectively estimate. then the completion of this form ascertained by another method, would be unnecessary. The fourth step is to DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES two forms are provided NEEDED. On the following two pages, labeled "3 JOB DEFINITION", and "4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY". These forms are used to determine the appropriate numbers of employees to complete the specified tasks. Form 3 uses measures in either weeks or hours. Figures as to task duration from form 1 must be translated into hours from If form 2 was minutes. Thus thirty minutes becomes .5 hours. the task frequency data must completed over anything but weeks, if a task is completed be translated into weekly counts. Thus, If it once per day, it must be shown as five times per week. it must be translated to 10 times occurs forty times per month, per week. The reason for not calculating these figures in hours and weeks originally is that the task duration measures are more accurate if they are originally measured in minutes, and the task frequency measures are more representative of the total scope of a job if they are based on a relatively long time period. 81 3 JOB DEFINITION TASK frequency rate Classification interviews Intake summaries Monthly interviews Respond to mail Parole summaries Inquiries Counseling optimal normal sessions /workhoursperweek total positions required total 0.2 32 160 0.2 32 40 1.5 60 40 1.0 40 120 0.5 60 120 0.5 60 320 0.5 160 320 0.1 32 13 1.1 14 13 0.5 7 280 0.2 56 280 0.1 28 40 0.9 36 80 0.9 72 + on-job allowances total hours per week frequency rate 160 total direct time + relief factor total I . 24 418 271 38 25 109 565 .24 71 367 40 9 4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY institution function population number percent rate MILLHAVEN 1.5% 1.6 MANNING 3.8% 0.9 5.8% 2.3 4.0% 2.9 4.8% 1.9 4.0% 1.9 4.0% 2.0 proposal 7.0% 3.5 optimal proposal 4.5% 2.3 final recommendation 4.5% 2.3 JOE HARP 400/154 9 VIENNA comparison institutions current actual positions 400/200 8 normal I COMMENTS: Requires purchase and operation of a word processor and computer record system terminal. Clerical time and effort may also increase. The frequency figures can be based upon the expected performance of one employee, or of a group of employees. In this the frequency figures are based upon the numbers of instance, tasks for all of the counselors in a given week. The result is, therefore, an estimate of the total number of counselors needed. The data on the form can best be explained by examination on the information on form 3 will be one item in detail. First, completed for a "normal" situation, under that category. The "optimal" category would be used for comparison purposes, to estimate the staff requirements under revised assumptions of the methods, time requirements, and frequency of some or all of the tasks. We will begin by completing the "normal" category on form 3. It is estimated that forty intake summaries must be completed each week. This is consistent with the data on form 2, which showed one counselor completing an average of one summary per day. On that basis, eight counselors would complete forty summaries per week. Summaries each take an average of 88 minutes, the total time required to or 1.5 hours to complete. Therefore, complete 40 summaries is 60 hours. Each task is calculated in the same manner, and the total time requirements are totaled at the line which is labeled "total In this example 418 hours of time are required to direct time". complete these tasks. The next line is labeled "on-job allowances". The purpose of this line is to allow for non-task time which is permitted during a normal working day. In this case, during an eight-hour day, two 15 minute breaks are allowed, plus two five minute breaks. Thus, an eight hour day yields seven hours and twenty minutes of work, and forty minutes of break-time. Division of the break-time by the work-time yields a ratio which is used to calculate the extra time associated with a specific amount of work-time. In this case, the ratio is .091, which is the result of dividing 40 minutes of break per day, by 440 minutes of work (7 hours and twenty minutes). Thus, for 418 hours of work, an extra 38 hours of breaks will be required to fulfill obligations to the employees. The next line is labeled "relief factor". The calculation of a relief factor is described in detail in Chapter Three. Basically, it represents the ratio of days on the job each year, there are 261 working days In this case, to total working days. per year, based upon 365 days in a year, and 104 regular days off because the counselors work a five day week. There are working days each year, however, where the counselors will not be doing 10 holidays, 8 their normal job duties: 15 days of annual leave, days of sick leave, 10 days of training, and 7 days of military and other leave. This leaves 211 actual days of work, out of the 261 days yielded by a 40 hour, five day week. The coverage factor the total days divided by the actual days, or 261 divided by or 1.24. Thus, 100 normal working days would require 124 84 days of employment. In our example, 418 hours of actual work, plus 38 hours of training, would require 109 additional hours of leave, breaks, or 456, by etc. This is calculated by multiplying 418 plus 38, 0.24, which is 109. Thus, the total number of hours required per week to complete these tasks would be 565, which includes direct effort, and days on leave or training. This, divided on-job allowances, by the 40 hour work week yields the total required number of employees, which is 14. Based upon this information, there are several observations which can be made. First, since there is 14 counselors worth of work to be done, and only eight to do it, the perception that these people are overworked and are probably not completing much of their work, and are probably not doing quality the analysis work, this perception would be accurate. Further, reveals that 52% of their work-time is expended answering mail and and and only 23% is expended counseling inquiries, interviewing prisoners. On form 3, the "optimal" section of the form permits the restructuring of a job based upon different assumptions about the methods of work, time requirements, and frequency of tasks. In the example, changes have been made which attempt to resolve some the time For example, of the problems illustrated above. requirements for some of the tasks have been changed based upon time studies, using word processing equipment and a on form 1, computer terminal. The computer terminal, which is part of a record system, permits more rapid answers to inquiries regarding and future status of prisoners. The word the present, past, basic processing equipment searches the computer file for so that counselors only prepare those information on a prisoner, parts of parole summaries and other reports which are very recent such In the real world, or unique to the immediate problem. and may also systems may or may not achieve such efficiencies, require additional staff in other areas of an organization. let us assume the However, for the purposes of this example, validity of these figures. the total time On the basis of the more efficient methods, required for some tasks has been greatly reduced. In addition, the number of counseling sessions has been doubled. Following the a total of 271 same methodology as under the "normal" analysis, hours of task-work is required, with a total of nine counselors needed. Under the optimal proposal, 49% of the time is expended in counseling and interviews and 22% on mail and inquiries. This is a substantial improvement. This is a point at which productivity auditing can make a These significant contribution to the analysis of this problem. and required improvements probably increased clerical workloads, computer and wordprocessing equipment expenses. The following are some approaches to determining whether the costs of the extra personnel and equipment were efficient. 85 One way is to calculate the total cost of the normal and optimal approaches, and to subtract one from the other. Assume that the normal costs $280,000 per year and the optimal costs $180,000, in counselor salaries and support costs. On this basis, as long as the cost of clerical personnel and the annual lease or amortized purchase cost of a savings has been the equipment is less than $100,000, achieved in the overall cost of the counseling program. The problem with that approach is the the optimal approach not only is cheaper, but it also provides a more desirable mix of services. Productivity auditing would call for all of the "inputs" to the program to be translated into a single In this case, dollars are a good measure, and we measure. will assume a figure of $300,000 for the normal and $25O,OOO for the optimal. $20,000 was added to the normal for clerical costs, and $70,000 to the optimal for clerical and computer costs. A single measure of the outputs must also be created, which in this example will be "prisoner contact hours per week", which is the total number of hours per week, for the entire staff of counselors, in classification interviews, monthly interviews, and counseling sessions. The normal proposal yields 128 hours, and the optimal yields 164 hours. A productivity index is the ratio of outputs to inputs, or in this instance, the number of contact hours per $100,000 of expenditure. The measures are 43 for the normal, and 66 for the optimal. Thus, the optimal proposal is 53% more productive than the normal proposal, in terms of contact hours per dollar spent. In this way, productivity auditing allows the comparison of situations where equipment is being substituted for labor, or one kind of labor is being substituted for another. Table 4 provides a final check on the analysis, before a decision is to be made. Comparable institutions are identified, either from volume 2 of this report, or from information available to the person doing the study. Two types of rates are calculated. The first is the number of employees as a percent of total staff, and the second is the number of employees per 100 prisoners. These are two simple "ballpark" measures which allow one to compare proposals to other institutions. Differences may occur for several reasons. First, the institutions may not be as comparable as one might desire. In this case, the reasons for differences should be examined, to determine whether the comparison institution might have a better approach or method to a problem. Another reason for differences could be error in the comparison of one type of position to another. The actual duties on one "counselor" might not be comparable to those in another institution or system. error The most important type of difference would be based upon in defining on the part of the person doing the project, 86 the job under study. Comparison might lead to revision of time or frequency estimates, or the addition of new tasks to a job. People who work at a given job for a long time, or who study a job for a long time, can get distorted concepts and perceptions These distortions can arise because of of work requirements. needs for results to turn out in particular directions, or simply because of perceptions of work tasks which have been shaped by years of exposure to certain methods. Thus, the comparative approach can serve as a check on such a source of error. The final recommendation is a judgement based upon analysis of all of the information developed on the forms. The comments might include statements about necessary conditions for the such as, in the example, the purchase of recommendation to work, certain equipment. D. APPLICATION TO POSTS One final consideration is the application of this methodology to correctional officer posts. The problem is that, while the tasks required in the post orders for a post might the post may require a certain amount of time to be completed, have to be open all the time. During a 24 hour period, there may and the remainder be 14 hours worth of specific work to be done, of the time might be spent in general observation of the unit, or waiting for an incident to arise. One school of thought is that task analysis methodologies cannot therefore be applied to posts which must be open for specific periods of time. There are significant contributions which such a method can make to the management of posts. The TASK EFFICIENCY of a post can be increased. This is the percent of the total time that a post is open that is expended on specific tasks called for in the post orders. Specific tasks would be those which involve purposeful activity other than waiting and long periods of general observation. If a post is 80% efficient, then 80% of the the officer is doing tasks specified in time the post is open, the post orders, other than waiting. If a post were only 20% efficient, then added duties could be added to the post orders without adding more officer time to the post. If a cellhouse has ten officers within it, those positions are, on the average, 60% efficient, then the number of officers could be reduced to six without changing the overall responsibilities of the officers within the unit. There are two reservations to this method. First, sometimes and any other watching is a continuous responsibility of a post, duty could distract the officer from this basic responsibility. An example of such a situation would be a tower at the perimeter of a prison. The problem here is essentially one of correctional management. Sometimes tasks can be added which do not interfere, such as monitoring an infrequently used radio frequency. However, this is a a type of situation where task analysis has limited application. 87 The other reservation has to do with the maintenance of a basic response capability to a potential situation which should not arise. Thus , ten officers might be required in a cellhouse, not because of tasks to be completed, but because of possible incidents to be deterred or managed. Again, this ultimately becomes a correctional management judgement. However, in many these officers can perform other duties while such instances, waiting for an incident to arise. In determining the extent to which duties might be added, a post-efficiency measure might be useful. E. FINAL OBSERVATIONS The analysis of a staffing pattern can be a complex and time-consuming process. However, the benefits can be significant, especially at a time when budgets are tight. The process of staffing analysis is works best if it becomes an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event. The following are some suggestions in implementing a post and position analysis program at a jail or prison: Middle management staff should be trained in these procedures, and should conduct analyses and audits as a routine part of management. One or two employees might be encouraged to develop a special expertise in this area, and they might review the work of the managers. This might be an appropriate role for staff from the personnel unit of the institution. But the responsibility for such projects should not be the sole responsibility of one or two employees As a rule of thumb, every position should be evaluated no less than once every five years, and probably not more frequently than once every two years unless major changes are occuring in the position. New position requests should be justified on this basis. Even high-level positions should be audited, partly because it promotes acceptance of the practice by lower level and partly because useful information can be employees, developed. Perhaps the Warden really does need an administrative assistant after all..... Correctional officer posts should also be evaluated, and the efficiency of each post should be determined. This will promote a reasonable distribution of responsibilities between posts. Proposals for the staffing of new institutions should be justified, and re-evaluated within one or two years of the opening of the institution. to If responsibility for these functions are properly delegated trained middle-management employees, the time and effort 88 required will not be substantial for each employee, overall benefits to the institution and employees significant. 89 and the will be BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnes, Ralph M.: MOTION AND TIME STUDY: DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT OF WORK (New York, John Wiley, 1966). and Rosen, Ellen D.: NATIONAL SURVEY OF Benton, F. Warren, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE ATTRITION RATES (New York, National Center for Public Productivity at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to be published in early 1982) and Parsons, G., ACCOUNTING AND RESTITUTION Callison, J., Oklahoma Department of (Unpublished report, EVALUATION Corrections, 1978). Commission on Accreditation for Corrections: MANUALS OF STANDARDS (Rockville MD, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, FOR ADULT Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, 1977.) Federal Prison Service: STAFFING GUIDE FOR THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM (Washington, D.C., Federal Prison Service, 1980). Institute for Economic and Policy Studies: Greiser et. al., CORRECTIONAL POLICY AND STANDARDS: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS IN FIVE STATES (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980). Institute for Public Program Analysis: WORK SCHEDULE 'DESIGN HANDBOOK (Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 1978). Max: STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF LONG WORKING HOURS, Koosoris, Washington Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletins 791 & 791A (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1944). Maryland Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning: COMPARISON OF STAFFING IN MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES HAVING OVER 500 (unpublished STATES THOSE OF OTHER POPULATION WITH manuscript, 1980) Mullen, Joan, and Smith, Bradford: AMERICAN PRISONS AND JAILS, VOLUME III: CONDITIONS AND COSTS OF CONFINEMENT (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980) Marvin E.: MOTION AND TIME STUDY: IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY Mundel, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1978). Nanda Webb and Satisfaction, Job & Browne: "Hours of Work, Productivity", in PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW, VOL. II, NO. 3 445 (New York, Center for Productive Public Management, W59th, NYC, 10019). et. al.: UNOBTRUSIVE MEASURES: NONREACTIVE RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, (Chicago, Rand McNally, 1966). 90 2 TASKFREQUENCY ANALYSIS time TASK period tally # # 92 # 3 JOB DEFINITION TASK total direct time + on-job allowances + relief factor total hours per week + workhours per week total positions required normal total frequency rate optimal total frequency rate NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD John R. Armore Vice President The National Alliance of Business Washington, D.C. Stephen Horn President California State University at Long Beach Long Beach, California Benjamin F. Baer Acting Chairman U.S. Parole Commission Bethesda, Maryland Robert J. Kutak Attorney Omaha, Nebraska Norman Carlson Director Bureau of Prisons Washington, D.C. Bennett J. Cooper Director Division of Administration of Justice Columbus, Ohio Robert F. Diegelman Acting Administrator Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Washington,. D.C. Shirley Gray Director Foothill Area Office County of Los Angeles Probation Department Pasadena, California Dorcas Hardy Assistant Secretary for Development Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C. Charles Laurer Acting Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, D.C. A. Leo Levin Director Federal Judicial Center Washington, D.C. William Lucas Sheriff, Wayne County Detroit, Michigan W. Walter Menninger Director Division of Law Psychiatry Menninger Foundation Topeka, Kansas Norval Morris Professor University of Chicago Law School Chicago, Illinois Vincent O'Leary President State University of New York Albany, New York U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections Washington. D. C. 20534 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Justice Jus-434 PLANNING AND EVALUATING PRISON AND JAIL STAFFING VOLUME II F. WARREN BENTON, PH.D. PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1975-1979 OCTOBER 1981 This project was supported by Grant Number CB-3 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. SECTION ONE INTRODUCTORY EXPLANATION A. INTRODUCTION This volume includes detailed descriptions of the staffing 1980. The patterns of twenty institutions, as of Summer, have been developed from institutional descriptions source documents, systematically entered into a microcomputer data base, and processed so as to provide standard descriptions with reference measures. The volume is intended as a resource in planning and evaluating prison staffing pattern, as the institutions have been selected so as to illustrate a variety of approaches to institutional *operation, varying in terms of institutional size, institutional design, staffing intensity, civilianization, program objectives, and prisoner characteristics. The collection of staffing descriptions may serve as a specific source of reference institutions in the application of the Multiple Methods Approach to staff evaluation described in Volume One. However, it should be understood that this is not the only source of such data, and that often a more realistic analysis can be conducted through the identification of one or reference institutions' sharing similar relevent more "live" characteristics with the subject institution. Use of this volume is usually less expensive and faster, but not necessarily better. B. SUMMARY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL REPORT CONTENTS For each of the twenty institutions, a specific report is some explanation of presented. Because the reports are complex, terms and approaches is necessary. This will be accomplished through a narrative review of the first institutional report, which describes the staffing of the Auburn Correctional Facility, of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. The first page shows the calculation of the coverage factor, based upon data which-is specific to each institution. For a more detailed discussion of such calculations, see pages 30-34 of Volume I. 1 The bottom-half of the first page begins a summary of the specific posts and positions which make up the overall staffing pattern. The functional categories were described in Chapter Four of Volume I, but the following is a list of those categories: Administration Business management Support operations Programs and activities Medical and treatment Control points Perimeter security Unit supervision Internal activity and yard External and other Thus, the bottom of the first page provides a summary of administrative positions at the Auburn facility, and subsequent sections provide summaries of other categories of posts and positions, in the order identified in the above list. For each position, seven pieces of information are provided, as follows: The name of the position is the first "warden", "secretary", or "doctor". element, such as The location of the position is the next element, defining the general area of the institution where the position is assigned. For correctional officer posts, this may define the position more specifically than the name. The shift, such as "office hours", or "continuous", identifies the general time period when the post is open or the position is on duty. The next element, labeled "factor", indicates whether or not the position or post must be continuously covered when open. If this is the case, then the coverage factor is applied. There are three possible answers which appear in the column for each position. "Y" means that the position is factored, and "*" means that the “N" means that it is not factored, position is reverse-factored. This would occur when four positions, for example, are assigned for a post which is supposed to be staffed continuously, such as four boiler operators. Reverse-factoring causes the number of available positions (in this instance 4) to be assumed as a given, and the number of persons on duty is then an estimate of the average level of staffing of the post. For instance, in five telephone Administration for the Auburn facility, operators is insufficient to provide the 5.43 needed for 24 hour coverage. As a result, the post is shown as staffed at a level of 0.9, which means that about 90% of the time the position would be staffed, unless overtime is incurred. 2 ABSTRACT (both volumes) has three major purposes. The first is to identify methods of analysis and evaluation of staffing levels. These include task analysis, motion and time study, productivity auditing, outcome analysis, process analysis, and comparative analysis. A specific method is presented, called the Multiple Methods Approach because several staff evaluation techniques are independently applied. The report provides instructions and necessary forms so that an institutional manager may apply this approach. The second purpose is to describe alternative methods of organizational structure and shift or roster management for prisons and jails. Concepts presented include traditional, project, and matrix organizational structures, unit management, as well as specific approaches to staffing housing units. The third purpose is to document current staff levels of twenty institutions representing jails and prisons which are both new and old, and large and small. The staffing patterns are presented and compared within the following categories: administration, business management, support operations, programs and services, medical and treatment, control points, perimeter security, unit supervision, internal activity and yard, and external positions. In addition, summary tables are presented illustrating rates of employment per hundred prisoners from several other studies, including a survey of 162 prisons. The monograph is divided into two volumes. The first contains all of the material except for the specific staffing patterns themselves. These have been placed in the second volume, including an introductory explanation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I. INTRODUCTORY EXPLANATION A. INTRODUCTION B. SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL REPORT CONTENTS 1 2 II. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS OLDER SECURE FACILITIES AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NEW YORK UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA MINNESOTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ST. CLOUD IOWA STATE PENITENTIARY, FORT MADISON 5 13 21 29 NEWER SECURE FACILITIES JOE HARP CORRECTIONAL CENTER, OKLAHOMA MINN. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, OAR PARK HEIGHTS UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, MARION, ILLINOIS MECHLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER, VIRGINIA MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION, CANADA MANNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, S. CAROLINA 36 41 48 54 59 66 OLDER LOW SECURITY FACILITIES CAMP GEORGETOWN, NEW YORK FEDERAL PRISON CAMP, ALLENWOOD, VIRGINIA 71 76 NEWER LOW SECURITY FACILITIES VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ILLINOIS FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FORT WORTH 82 89 LOCAL FACILITIES PENITENTIARY, ONANDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y. BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION, NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY REPLACEMENT FACILITY, ONANDAGA COUNTY, N.Y. MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION, NEW YORK CITY i v 96 101 106 112 118 123 The next category, labeled "Y", indicates the intended level Of staffing of the position. For example, the Superintendent is identified as a "l", meaning that there is only one person in this job. On the next page, under "Business Management", six Account Clerks are identified. identifying The next column is labeled "Span of Control", the number of employees directly supervised by the described position. In the Auburn example, the Superintendent is shown as having a span of control of four employees, which are the three deputies and a secretary. Span of control is discussed in more detail on page 27 of Volume I. The final figure in each column represents the total positions needed to provide the described level of staffing for the indicated shift(s). Each position for the entire institution is described in this manner, following the list of categories identified above. The last two pages of each descriptive report provide a First, a detailed analysis of the staffing pattern presented. table is presented which summarizes the total number of positions by category. Thus, in the Auburn example, all 619 positions are indicates the labeled " % ", The next column, accounted for. percent of all positions representeed by each category. The column labeled "Rate per 100 Prisoners" provides the number of positions, by category, per hundred prisoners in the institution. The "Standard Cost per 100 Prisoners" should be interpreted and not as an relative to other institutions in the data base, cost per hundred describes the However, it absolute cost. organized as it is in this prisoners of a given function, institution. illustrates the "Staff Summary by Shift", The next table, for numbers of employees, and the rates per hundred prisoners, each shift, and for various category groupings. In the Auburn total the table illustrates that there are 619 example, employees, constituting 36 per hundred prisoners. However, only 34 of these are on duty at any given time on the night shift, providing an effective ratio of 2 per hundred prisoners. Of these, only 16 are correctional officers in housing units. At the bottom of this page, the Average Span of Supervisory Control is presented, which is the average span for all employees supervising other employees. Under that is an analysis of It determines whether the total correctional officer positions. number of authorized correctional officers, plus the average is sufficient to number of officers generated through overtime, "Congruence" cover the number of posts and positions identified. is the ratio of needed officers divided by available officers. It If it exceeds 1.00, should be somewhere between 0.95 and 0.99. requiring either then there is a shortage of officers for posts, or fewer posts. Note that the "Authorized CO's" m o r e officers, does not include those whose posts are usually filled by 3 and whose post or position descriptions are described civilians, five in the first categories (Administration through These positions are deleted from both the Medical/Treatment). needed officers and the available officers in calculating the ratio. The "Key Function Positions" table illustrates total positions are rates for specific categories of positions. Medical and mental health position totals should be interpreted with caution since much of these services are provided through contractual relationships. On the last page, some of the measures from the previous are illustrated in graphic format. With some experience, page these charts can be interpreted to provide rapid insights into staffing pattern characteristics, and cues as to areas for further analysis. The final table indicates the number of days per month, or per year, which should be accumulated in order to fulfill responsibilities to employees such as annual leave, training, etc. Unless these numbers of days are accrued each month, the institution will get behind, and have to suffer shortages of available employees at the end of the fiscal year to fulfill the obligations. The overall purpose of the descriptions is to enable an insightful analysis and review of the staffing patterns of twenty very different institutions. These may serve as models for the planning or evaluation of other institutional staffing patterns. 4 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: 365 104 261 25 11 11 5 1 6 202 1.29 5.43 1.81 COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: ##################X####################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 9 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMIN. SERVICES PROGRAM SERVICES SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT DPTY: ADMIN SVCS DPTY: PGRM SVCS SWITCHBOARD PERSONNEL INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT DEPUTY SUPT. DEPUTY SUPT. DEPUTY SUPT. SECRETARY SECRETARY SECRETARY TELEPHONE OPERATORS SECRETARY SUPERVISOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 5 N N N N N N N * N N 1.0 4 1.0 8 1.0 11 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 0.9 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PRINCIPAL CLERK STEWARD HEAD ACCT CLERK BUDGET ANALYST ACCOUNT CLERK SENIOR ACCT CLERK ACCOUNT CLERKS STENO/TYPISTS PAYROLL CLERK CLERK SUPERV CLERKS STENOGRAPHER SENIOR CLERK CLERKS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING PERSONNEL COMMISSARY COMMISSARY TRAINING CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 2 9 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 29.00 N N N N N N N * N N N N * * N N N N N N 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 2 1.4 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 12 1.0 2 1.1 0 1.3 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 5.0 1 5.0 0 1.0 0 3.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 46.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS ASST. COOK JANITOR STORES CLERK STORES CLERK FOOD SERVICE MANAGER ASST. MANAGER HEAD COOK COOKS MEAT CUTTER LAUNDRY SUPERV PLANT SUPT. SUPERVISOR STATIONARY ENGINEERS ASST. STAT. ENGINEERS MECHANIC MECHANIC FOREMEN ASSISTANTS VEHICLE MECHANIC VEHICLE OPERATORS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION INVENTORY INVENTORY FOOD SERVICE FOOD SERVICE KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN LAUNDRY MAINTENANCE STAT. ENGINEERS BOILER BOILER PLANT OPERATIONS REFRIGERATION BLDG MAINTENANCE BLDG MAINTENANCE GARAGE GARAGE 6 OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SENIOR COUNSELOR COUNSELORS COUNSELORS CLERK/TYPISTS CLERK/TYPISTS CHAPLAINS DIRECTOR TYPIST/STENO TEACHER SUPERVISOR TEACHERS TEACHER SUPERVISOR TEACHERS TYPIST SUPERVISOR TEACHERS TEACHER LIBRARIAN SUPERVISOR STENO/TYPIST TEACHER COUNSELOR STENO/TYPIST HEAD CLERK CLERKS TYPISTS INTERVIEWER TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION CASE MANAGEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CASE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CHAPEL EDUCATION EDUCATION DIR. EDUCATION ACADEMIC EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PHYSICAL EDUCATION PHYSICAL EDUCATION MUSIC EDUCATION INMATE LIBRARY VOLUNTEER SERVICES VOLUNTEER SERVICES SPECIAL HOUSING SPECIAL HOUSING SPECIAL HOUSING RECORDS RECORDS RECORDS TEMPORARY RELEASE TEMPORARY RELEASE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE QFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N 1.0 15 1.00 N 13.0 1 13.00 N 2.0 1 2.00 N 9.0 0 9.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 18 1.00 N 10.0 0 10.00 N 1.0 18 1.00 N 17.0 0 17.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 2.0 3 2.00 N 6.0 0 6.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 83.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PHYSICIANS DENTISTS NURSE ADMINISTRATOR PHARMACIST NURSES RADIOLOGY TECH SENIOR CLERK TYPIST/STENO CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL RECORDS MEDICAL 7 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N * N N N 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.50 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CONTROL POINTS ASST. DEPUTY SUPERINT CAPTAIN WATCH COMMANDER ASST. WATCH COMMANDER SERGEANT ENTRANCE OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER ENTRANCE TRAFFIC CONTROL GUN NEST GUN NEST CONTROL CENTER OFFICER N DINING GAS BOOTH S DINING GAS BOOTH OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY WALL,YARD,ACTIVITIES NORTHYARD/ADM.BLDG FRONT DOOR VISITING LOBBY VISIT FRISK LOWER CONTROL ROOM UPPER LOBBY UPPER CONTROL ROOM UPPER CONTROL ROOM ARSENAL DEPTY SUPT OFFICE C&D BLOCK MAIN YARD MAIN YARD MAIN YARD YARD AREA SHOP GATE l:OO-9:00 l:OO-9:00 NORTH CONTROL CTR COMMISSARY GATE FIRE & SAFETY OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS NIGHT,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL OFFICE HRS N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVE,M-F DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y Y Y Y Y 5.0 0 27.13 3.0 0 5.43 2.0 0 7.24 1.0 0 1.29 1.0 0 1.81 1.0 0 3.62 46.51 5 1 4 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 5.17 5.43 1.81 3.62 1.29 5.43 3.62 1.81 5.43 1.81 5.43 1.81 5.43 1.81 3.62 1.81 3.62 1.81 3.62 3.62 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.00 77.20 PERIMETER SECURITY TOWERS TOWERS TOWERS TOWER GATE OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: #1,3,7,10,12 #2,4,9 #5,11 #9 WALL STREET WIRE GATE 8 POSITION ***** LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL UNIT SUPERVISION SERGEANT OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: UNITS HOSPITAL SPECIAL HOUSING SPECIAL HOUSING MENTAL HYGIENE SAT MENTAL HYGIENE SAT A BLOCK B BLOCK C BLOCK D BLOCK E BLOCK 9 DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 13 7.24 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 3.62 2.0 0 10.85 1.0 0 1.81 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 10.85 2.0 0 10.85 99.49 ***** INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD SERGEANT SERGEANT ESCORT OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER ESCORT OFFICERS SECURITY PORTERS OFFICER OFFICERS PROCESSING OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER BASEMENT & RECR OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER EVENING RECREATION OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS ESCORT OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS AREAS AREAS TRUCK VISITING ROOM VISIT SNACK ROOM DIAL HOME PGRM CLINIC CLINIC LOWER HALL ADM BLDG PAROLE CLOTHING PACKAGE ROOM RECEPTION & RELEASE CORRESPONDENCE IDENTIFICATION OFFICE LAW LIBRARY ORIENTATION MAIN YARD SOUTH YARD SOUTH YARD RECREATION YARD PATROL SHOP PATROL KITCHEN NORTH DINING KITCHEN BAKERY EMPLOYEE DINING STOREHOUSE SOUTH DINING COMMISSARY LAUNDRY BATHHOUSE CLOTHING ROOM TAILORING CLASS MAINTENANCE GANG ELECTRIC SHOP MAINTENANCE GANGS OUTSIDE UTILITY GANGS INCINERATOR GANG TRASH GANG #l TRASH GANG #2 LOCK REPAIRS INDUSTRY SHOPS SCHOOL SCHOOL BARBER SHOP & YARD SCHOOL & MOVIES LIBRARY/HOBBY SHOP CHAPEL AREA GYMNASIUM LOCKER ROOM ACTIVITY ROOM MAIN YARD SOUTH YARD 1 0 DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL NIGHT,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,M-F EVENING,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL Y 4.0 14 7.24 Y 1.0 14 2.58 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.3 0 1.81 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 5.0 0 9.04 Y 5.0 0 18.09 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 3.0 0 5.43 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 4.0 0 7.24 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 2.0 0 2.58 Y 2.0 0 2.58 Y 1.0 0 1 . 8 1 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 20.0 0 36.18 Y 4.0 0 7.24 Y 1.0 0 1.29 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 5.0 0 9.04 Y 1.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 3.62 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 1.0 0 1.81 Y 2.0 0 3.62 Y 3.0 0 5.43 POSITION ***** LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL EXTERNAL AND OTHER LIEUTENANT BUS OFFICERS RELIEF OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRAINING TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N Y N 1.0 4.0 1.0 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 1 0 0 1.00 5.17 1.00 7.17 619.16 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY POSITIONS AREA 14.0 29.0 46.0 83.0 16.5 77.2 46.5 99.5 200.3 7.2 619.2 ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: % 2.3 4.7 7.4 13.4 2.7 12.5 7.5 16.1 32.3 1.2 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 71 4 94 6 21 1 121 7 306 18 5 0 1 0 18 1 58 3 82 5 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. RATE PER 100 P. 0.8 1.7 2.7 4.9 1.0 4.5 2.7 5.9 11.8 0.4 36.4 NITE # R 3 1 16 13 34 0 0 1 1 2 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 5.44 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL: 434.00 30.00 464.00 430.65 33.36 0.93 11 TOTE # R 89 5 100 6 99 6 331 19 619 36 # R 11 1 0 0 0 0 33 2 37 2 SUMMARY CHART NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx #######################I###### ################## ##### 2 ## 36 #################################### 0 5 ##### 5 ##### 6 ###### 6 ###### 19 ###############I#### 1 # 0 1700 29 18 5 2 2 1 1 1 ## ## # # # DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 897 395 395 179 36 215 505 10766 4737 4737 2153 431 2584 6060 393 173 173 79 16 94 0 4713 2074 2074 943 189 1131 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 12 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT U.S.P. ATLANTA STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS ######################################################################### CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 15 10 6 5 2 2 221 1.18 4.96 1.65 ~######################################################################## STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 2 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION WARDEN WARDEN OPERATIONS CONTROLS PROGRAMS INDUSTRIES AW OPERATIONS AW CONTROLS AW PROGRAMS AW PROGRAMS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN SECRETARY EXEC. ASST. ASSOC. WARDEN ASSOC. WARDEN ASSOC. WARDEN SUPERINTENDENT SECRETARY SECRETARY ADM ASST SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 13 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7 0 0 5 5 10 3 0 0 4 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 POSITION ***** -LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OFFICER BUSINESS MANAGER ASST. PERSONNEL OFFIC TRAINING COORD PERSONNEL SPEC CLERK ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE PURCHASING AGENT ASST. PURCHASING AGEN SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR ASST. SUPERVISOR COMMISSARY TRAINEE CLERKS CASHIER CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ASST. ADMINISTRATOR ADM. ASST ACCOUNTANTS ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASING AGENTS ORDER CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE COMMISSARY ACCOUNTING COMMISSARY COMMISSARY TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES 14 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2 1 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 2 6 0 3 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 34.OG POSITION ***** LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL SUPPORT OPERATIONS CHIEF: MECHANICAL SER ADMINISTRATOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR LAUNDRYMAN EXCHANGE OFFICERS STOREKEEPER STOREKEEPERS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRAT COOK FOREMEN ADMINISTRATIVE ASST FOREMAN CHIEF OF UTILITIES GENERAL FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMEN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMEN FOREMAN ASST. TO CHIEF UTILTIY OPERATORS FOREMAN SAFETY OFFICERS CHIEF WAREHOUSEMAN WAREHOUSE FOREMEN FOREMAN SUPERVISOR MAINTENANCE FOREMEN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MAINTENANCE FOOD SERVICES CLOTHING SERVICES SUPPLIES CLOTHING SERVICES CLOTHING SERVICES RECEIVING WAREHOUSES FOOD SERVICE KITCHEN CHIEF: MECH SERV CONSTRUCTION UTILITIES MAINTENANCE MASONRY CARPENTRY PAINTING ELECTRONICS MACHINE SHOP ELECTRICAL PLUMBING SHEET METAL AUTO REPAIR LANDSCAPE GENERAL MAINTENANCE AIRCONDITIONING UTILITIES BOILER PIPEFITTING ALL AREAS INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES 15 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N * N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N * N N N N N N 1.0 4 1.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 2 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 4 1.00 4.2 0 14.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 19 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 5.0 0 5.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.2 0 6.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 1.0 9 1.00 5.0 2 5.00 1.0 10 1.00 10.0 0 10.00 76.00 -. POSITION ***** -LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES CHIEF CLASS & PAROLE COORDINATOR PRINCIPAL CHAPLAIN ASST. SUPERVISOR CASEWORKERS CLERKS ASST. MANAGER TRAINEE ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR ASSISTANT FILE CLERKS ADM. CLERK DATA ANALYST EQUIPMENT OPERATOR PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINCIPAL CLERK TRAINERS SUPERVISOR SPECIALISTS TEACHERS TEACHERS TREATMENT SPECIALIST ASST. SUPERINTENDENT FACTORY MANAGERS PRODUCTION CONTROLLER TEXTILE SPECIALIST FOREMAN SUPERVISOR INDUSTRIAL COUNSELORS MANAGER COST ANALYST MARKETING SPECIALIST MARKETING ASST. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER SUPERVISOR, QUALITY C ENGINEER ASSISTANT MANAGER MANAGEMENT TRAINEES FOREMEN FOREMEN FOREMEN FOREMEN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: CLASS & PAROLE CASEMANAGEMENT EDUCATION CHAPEL PAROLE PAROLE PAROLE RECORDS CLASSIFICATION RECORDS CONTROL RECORDS CONTROL RECORDS RECORDS RECORDS RECORDS EDUCATION EDUCATION PRINCIPAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RECREATION RECREATION REMEDIAL EDUCATION ACADEMIC EDUCATION DRUG ABUSE INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES QUALITY CONTROL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS INDUSTRIES TEXTILE DIVISION TEXTILE DIVISION TEXTILES TEXTILES TEXTILES TEXTILES INDUSTRIES TEXTILE MILL TEXTILE MILL TEXTILE MILLS CANVAS FACTORY BASKET FACTORY MATTRESS FACTORY 16 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N 1.0 4 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 5 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 23 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 11.0 0 11.00 N 1.0 0 l.O0 N 1.0 8 1.00 N 5.0 7 5.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 9 1.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 28.0 0 28.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 114.00 POSITION ***** LOCATION SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PSYCHOLOGIST SOCIAL SERVICE ASST. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PSYCHOLOGIST PSYCH TECH PHYSICIANS HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATO ASST. ADMINISTRATOR RECORDS TECH SECRETARY DENTISTS PURCHASING AGENT TECHNICIAN PHYSICIAN'S ASST. PHARMACIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL DRUG ABUSE DRUG ABUSE MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL SPECIALTIES MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL RECORDS MEDICAL MEDICAL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS POSITION LOCATION SHIFT SECURITY SECURITY CORRIDORS CONTROL ROOM CONTROL ROOM CUSTODY ENTRANCE OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,M-F N * Y Y Y N Y 1.0 3 1.00 3.0 11 15.00 2.0 0 9.92 1.0 0 4.96 1.0 0 1.65 3.0 0 3.00 1.0 0 2.36 37.90 CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS Y Y Y 7.0 1.0 1.0 ***** 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 0 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 9 1.00 1 1.00 0 1.00 0 4.00 1 1.00 7 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 0 3.00 0 1.00 1 1.00 0 12.00 0 1.00 32.00 FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CONTROL POINTS CHIEF SUPERVISOR SUPERVISORY OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CLERKS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** N N N N N N N N N N N N N N * N PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TOWERS TOWERS PATROL 17 0 34.72 0 3.31 0 4.96 42.99. POSITION ***** DRUG ABUSE CELLHOUSES OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS N 1.0 Y 12.0 5 1.00 0 59.52 60.52 OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 1.65 3.31 3.31 6.61 1.65 9.92 1.65 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 36.01 CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F Y Y 2.0 2.0 0 0 9.92 2.36 12.28 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD CORRECTIONAL COUNSEL0 OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL UNIT SUPERVISION PROGRAM MANAGER OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT -LOCATION DRUG ABUSE RECEIVING & DISCHARGE VISITING RECEPTION RECREATION RECREATION YARD PATROL TOOL ROOM MAIL ROOM RECREATION SHOPS RECEIVING & DISCHARGE EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OTHER POSTS BUS 456.70 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 18 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN U.S.P. ATLANTA POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 11.0 34.0 76.0 114.0 32.0 37.9 43.0 60.5 36.0 12.3 456.7 AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: RATE PER 100 P. 2.4 7.4 16.6 25.0 7.0 8.3 9.4 13.3 7.9 2.7 100.0 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 15,104 39,853 89,082 133,624 48,225 35,536 40,311 56,752 33,770 11,517 503,773 DAY # R EVE # R NITE # R TOTL # R 106 7 136 9 13 1 43 3 299 20 5 0 2 0 12 1 24 2 44 3 1 0 2 0 12 1 16 1 32 2 121 8 146 10 61 4 129 9 457 31 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERSOTHER OFFICERS TOTAL % KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 4.38 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 232.00 242.00 189.70 52.30 0.78 19 # R 21 1 4 0 88 6 25 2 20 1 SUMMARY CHART U.S.P. ATLANTA POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE - 1490 18 20 3 2 31 0 4 8 10 4 9 1 0 6 2 1 1 1 1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ################## #################### ### ############################### #### ######### ########## #### ######### # ####### ## # # # DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 237 158 95 79 32 32 184 2846 1897 1138 949 379 379 2210 334 223 134 111 45 45 0 4005 2670 1602 1335 534 534 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 20 NON-OFFICERS ########################################################################## CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 18 10 8 3 2 2 218 1.20 5.03 1.68 ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 10 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION LIVING UNITS GLU SUPT. ASST.UPT. TRAINING TRAINING OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT ASSOC. SUPT. GEN. MANAGER CLERK STENO SECRETARY SECRETARY DIRECTOR TRAINER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 21 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N 1.0 7 1.0 9 1.0 10 2.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 POSITION * * * SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MANAGER PERSONNEL DIR. PERSONNEL AIDE SECRETARY SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR ACCOUNTANTS MANAGER ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTANTS ACCOUNT CLERK ACCOUNTANTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL PERSONNEL SWITCHBOARD WELFARE FUND CANTEEN ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRIES OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFF-ICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 11 1.0 2 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 5 4.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 16.00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1 1.0 4 4.0 0 1.0 2 1.0 0 1.0 5 5.0 0 1.0 11 6.0 0 5.0 0 1.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 6.O0 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 29.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS FOOD MANAGER CHIEF COOK COOKS PLANT DIRECTOR INVENTORY SUPERV. FOREMAN,B.MAINT. B. MAINT STAFF CHIEF ENGINEER ENGINEERS ENGINEER STAFF EXECUTIVE VAN DRIVER MACHINIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE BOILER BOILER MECHANICAL WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIES 22 OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES PROGRAM COORD. INDUSTRIES SUPT. CHAPLAINS CASEWORKERS RECR. DIR. CASEWORKERS CASEWORKERS CASEWORKER CASEWORKERS CASEWORKER HEARING OFFICER HRNG.INVESTIGATOR STENOGRAPHER DIRECTOR RECDS.SUPERV RECDS.CLEAKS RELEASE CLERKS DATA ENTRY CLERKS PLACEMENT OFFICER DIRECTOR SUPERVISOR ACAD. TEACHERS LIBRARIAN AIDES SUPERVISOR COUNSELORS SUPERVISOR VOTEC TEACHERS CLERK SALESMAN PLANT MANAGERS FOREMEN TEACHERS VAN DRIVER SUPERVISOR COUNSELORS SECRETARIES WORK EVALUATOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION LIVING UNITS ADMINISTRATION CHAPEL PLANNING UNIT RECR.AREAS UNIT A UNIT C UNIT D UNIT E RESHAPE INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION SUPPORT SVES. RECORDS RECORDS RELEASE DATA ROOM PLACEMENT EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION HIGHER EDUC. HIGHER EDUC. VOCATIONAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES VOC-REHAB VOC-REHAB VOC-REHAB VOC-REHAB OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL EVE,M-F EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL EVE,M-F EVENING,ALL EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 5 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 5.0 0 5.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 4 1.00 N 1.0 15 1.00 N 14.0 0 14.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 2.0 10 2.00 N 10.0 0 10.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 93.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL NIGHT,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N N N N MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST PSYCHOLOGIST MEDICAL TECH NURSES PARAMEDICS DENTIST DENTIST DENTAL TECHS PHARMICIST PHARM. TECH. CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PSYCH DEPT. PSYCH.DEPT. INFIRMARY INFIRMARY INFIRMARY INFIRMARY INFIRMARY INFIRMARY INFIRMARY 2 INFIRMARY 3 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.8 2.3 1.0 0.3 3 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.75 2.25 1.00 0.30 15.30 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CUSTODY CUSTODY CUSTODY CUSTODY ASSIGNMENTS CAGES 1&2 CAGES l&2 CAGE 1 CORRIDOR FOOD SERVICE EDUCATION DESK SWITCHBOARD TURNKEY COUNT HEARING BOARD DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 10 6 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 10.06 6.70 1.68 1.00 1.68 1.68 1.68 3.35 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 3.35 3.35 1.68 44.90 CONTINUOUS EVENING,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,ALL Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 0 1.0 0 5.0 0 0.5 0 1.0 0 5.03 1.68 8.38 0.84 1.68 17.60 CONTROL POINTS CAPTAINS LIEUTENANTS LIEUTENANTS LIEUTENANTS LIEUTENANT SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY CORRIDOR GATE INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TURNKEY COUNT CONTROL SECURITY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERIMETER SECURITY PATROL PATROL TOWERS 1-5 TOWERS l-5 TRUCK GATE CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OUTSIDE OUTSIDE TOWERS HALF-TIME TRUCK GATE 24 POSITION ***** SHIFT LOCATION FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL UNIT SUPERVISION DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. SHIFT SUPERVISORS CCII. CCII DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. SHIFT SUPERVISOR CCII CCII DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. SHIFT SUPERVISOR CCII CCII DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. CCIII:PROGRAMS SHIFT SUPERVISOR CCII CCII DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. SHIFT SUPERVISOR CCII CCII DIRECTOR ASST. DIR. SHIFT SUPERVISOR CCII CCII CCII DIRECTOR ASST.DIR. INT.PGM.COORD.. CCII HEAD CCII CCII HEAD CCII CCII DIRECTOR CCII SUPERVISOR SECURITY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PLANNING UNIT PLANNING UNIT PLANNING UNIT PLANNING UNIT PLANNING UNIT UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT D UNIT D UNIT D UNIT D UNIT D UNIT D UNIT E UNIT E UNIT E UNIT E UNIT E ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU ICU RESHAPE RESHAPE RESHAPE RESHAPE RSHPE OUTSIDE RSHPE OUTSIDE RSHPE TRANS RSHPE TRANS. ATC ATC UNIT SECURITY UNITS 25 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAYCEVE,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAYtEVE,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL NIGHT,ALL N N * * * N N * * * N N * * * N N N * * * N N * * * N N * * * * N N N N N N N N N N N Y 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.2 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 2 6 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 6 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 1.00 1.03 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 5.03 108.53 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD CCII SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY ACTIVITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION RECR.AREAS WAREHOUSE CANTEEN PATROL PATROL FOOD SERVICE SCHOOL GYMNASIUM VISITING HEALTH SERVICE INDUSTRIES EVENING,ALL DAYCEVE,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.00 0 3.00 2 1.00 0 10.06 0 3.35 0 5.03 0 6.70 0 10.06 0 1.68 0 1.68 0 1.68 45.23 DAY,ALL Y 1.0 0 EXTERNAL AND OTHER TRANSPORT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORT 1.68 1.68 380.23 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 26 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 9.0 16.0 29.0 93.0 15.3 44.9 17.6 108.5 45.2 1.7 380.2 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT,: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 3.78 205.00 10.00 215.00 217.94 2.94 1.Ol % 2.4 4.2 7.6 24.5 4.0 11.8 4.6 28.5 11.9 0.4 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 54 9 96 16 46 8 38 6 234 39 10 2 18 3 38 6 29 5 94 16 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 30,750 46,667 1.5 2.7 4.8 15.5 2.6 7.5 2.9 18.1 7.5 0.3 63.4 $ $ $ $ $ NITE # R 6 2 16 7 31 1 0 3 1 5 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 27 41:066 253,232 105,531 3,911 999,142 TOTL # R 54 108 109 109 380 9 18 18 18 63 # R 6 4 18 38 17 1 1 3 6 3 SUMMARY CHART MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 600 19 39 16 5 63 1 4 9 18 18 18 1 1 3 6 3 8 6 3 DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 327 182 145 54 36 36 182 3923 2179 1743 654 436 436 2180 243 135 108 41 27 27 0 2921 1623 1298 487 325 325 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 28 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: 1.23 5.17 1.72 COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 15 STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 15 9 13 9 1 2 212 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION AMINISTRATION WARDEN DIV CRIM INVEST ATTY GEN ADM ASST GRIEVANCES ADMINISTRATION DEPUTY WARDEN OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN ADM. ASSISTANT INVESTIGATOR LAWYER TYPIST COUNSELOR RECEPTIONIST SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 29 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MANAGER PERSONNEL SPEC CLERK ADM. OFFICER TRAINING OFFICER TECHNICIAN CLERK CLERKS CLERKS CLERK CLERK TYPIST SECRETARY MAIL CLERKS TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING BUSINESS MANAGER MAIL ROOM ACCOUNTING OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 15 1.0 2 1.0 3 1.0 13 1.0 0 1.0 3 1.0 0 1.0 0 3.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 5.0 0 1.0 0 N N N N N * N N N N N N N IQ N N * N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 21.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS MANAGER TECHNICIAN SUPERVISOR POWER TYPIST DIETITIAN COORDINATORS SUPERVISOR WAREHOUSEMEN STOREKEEPER SUPERVISOR REPAIR LEADERS REPAIR LEADERS REPAIR LEADERS REPAIR ASSTS. MANAGER SUPERVISOR ENGINEERS TECHNICIAN TYPISTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PLANT OPERATIONS ELECTRONICS BLDGS & GRNDS PERSONNEL FOOD SERVICES FOOD SERVICES IND. WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIES WAREHOUSE BUILDING SERVICES MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN PLUMBING ELECTRICIAN PLANT OPERATIONS PLANT ENGINEERS POWER PLANT ELECTRONICS SUPPORT 30 OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS 1 1.00 1 1.00 3 1.00 0 1.00 3 1.00 0 12.00 2 1.00 0 2.00 0 2.00 0 1.00 0 8.00 2 1.00 0 2.00 0 2.00 2 1.00 0 1.00 0 5.00 0 1.00 0 3.00 47.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR OF TMT DIRECTOR TREATMENT DIRECTOR PRINCIPAL TEACHERS TREATMENT DIRECTOR TREATMENT DIRECTOR COUNSELORS COUNSELORS CHAPLAINS ASST. DIRECTOR ASST. MANAGER INDUSTRY TECH TYPISTS DRIVERS INDUSTRY TECH SUPERVISOR COUNSELORS SUPERVISOR TYPISTS CLERK TYPIST TEACHER TEACHER ;UPERVISOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PROGRAMS INDUSTRIES PENITENTIARY SCHOOL VOC. SCHOOL AUG. & MONT. BENNETT UNIT BENNETT UNIT AUG. & MONT. CHAPEL TREATMENT INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES OUTSIDE UNITS COUNSELORS PENITENTIARY RECORDS INMATE RECORDS DORM RECORDS BENNETT UNIT BENNETT UNIT FARM OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F N 1.0 7 1.00 N 1.0 6 1.00 N 1.0 6 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 5.0 0 5.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 N 1.0 4 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 15 1.00 N 10.0 0 10.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 12 1.00 N 12.0 0 12.00 N 1.0 9 1.00 N 9.0 0 9.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 64.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL N N N N N N N N N * * MEDICAL AND TREATMENT HOSPITAL ADM PHYSICIAN PHYSICIAN'S ASST SUPERVISOR PHARMACIST DENTIST ASSISTANTS MEDICAL TECH PSYCHOLOGIST NURSES NURSES CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL NURSING MEDICAL MEDICAL PHARMACY MEDICAL TREATMENT HOSPITAL HOSPITAL 31 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.1 1.2 2 4 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 2.00 20.00 POSITION ***** .FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL SECURITY CUSTODY SECURITY SECURITY YARD INVESTIGATIONS PASSES TURNKEY TURNKEY TELEVISION TELEVISION 2 7 0 13 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.17 3.45 1.00 1.00 5.17 3.45 5.17 3.45 31.85 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&iEVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y 5.0 0 25.85 3.0 0 10.34 36.20 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS EVENING,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY ,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y * Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2*0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.2 2.0 2.0 PERIMETER SECURITY TOWERS TOWERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS DIRECTOR ASST. SECURITY DIR CLERK & PASS OFFICER SHIFT SUPERVISOR YARD LIEUTENANT OFFICER OFFICER CONTROL SHAKEDOWN SURVEILLANCE SURVEILLANCE CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION #3,5,14,15,10 #2,4,7 UNIT SUPERVISION SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS CAGE SUPERVISOR CAGE OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS GENERAL SUPERVISOR SHIFT SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS SUPERVISOR DESK OFFICER WARD OFFICERS SUPERVISOR OFFICERS SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: UNIT #18 UNIT #18 UNIT #18 UNIT #18 UNIT #19 UNIT #19 UNIT #19 UNIT #19 UNIT #19 UNIT #20 UNIT #20 UNIT #20 UNIT #20 UNIT #20 UNIT #20 HOUSING UNITS UNIT #17 UNIT #17 UNIT #17 UNIT #17: PC UNIT #17: PC BUILDING #97 HOSPITAL UNIT HOSPITAL HOSPITAL J BENNETT UNIT J BENNETT UNIT AUGUSTACMONTROSE AUGUSTA 32 MONTROSE 2 5.1' 1 5.17 0 3.45 0 3.45 2 5.17 0 5.17 2 5.17 0 6.89 0 2.46 5 1.00 9 5.17 0 1.72 0 20.68 0 17.24 0 1.72 19 1.00 1 5.17 1 5.17 0 3.45 5 1.00 0 5.17 0 5.17 4 1.23 2 5.17 0 5.17 7 5.17 0 31.02 10 2.00 0 10.34 0 10.34 186.21 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD STOCKADE CAPTAIN SECURITY VISITING ROOM OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS DINING HALL OFFICER SECURITY OFFICER YARD SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS LIEUTENANT OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION STOCKADE YARD DRESSING OUT NE & SE YARD & RELIEF YARD & RELIEF YARD & RELIEF DINING HALL CHAPEL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE ACADEMIC SCHOOL INDUSTRIES LIBRARY DRUG ROOM DRUG ROOM ORIENT.& PROP. GYMNASIUM GYMNASIUM HOBBY CRAFT J BENNETT UNIT AUGUSTA MONTROSE DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL DAYCEVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAYCEVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAYLEVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL N 1.0 0 1.00 Y 1.0 16 3.45 Y 1.0 0 1.72 Y 2.0 0 3.45 Y 10.0 0 17.24 Y 13.0 0 22.41 Y 2.0 0 3.45 Y 1.0 0 3.45 N 1.0 0 1.00 Y 3.0 0 3.69 Y 2.0 0 2.46 Y 1.0 0 1.23 Y 1.0 0 1.23 Y 2.0 0 2.46 Y 1.0 0 1.23 Y 2.0 0 3.45 Y 1.0 0 1.72 Y 2.0 0 2.46 Y 1.0 6 1.23 Y 2.0 0 6.89 Y 1.0 0 1.23 Y 2.0 0 6.89 Y 1.0 0 3.45 Y 1.0 0 3.45 100.24 DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS Y * EXTERNAL AND OTHER ESCORT OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: IOWA CITY UNIVERSITY HOSP 3.0 1.5 0 0 3.69 8.00 11.69 527.21 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 33 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON POSITIONS AREA 9.0 21.0 47.0 64.0 20.0 31.9 36.2 186.2 100.2 11.7 527.2 ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT 64 7 79 9 45 5 64 7 252 28 ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: RATE PER 100 P. % 1.7 4.0 8.9 12.1 3.8 6.0 6.9 35.3 19.0 2.2 100.0 1.0 2.3 5.2 7.1 2.2 3.5 4.0 20.7 11.1 1.3 58.6 EVE # R 4 1 38 38 81 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 0 0 4 4 9 NITE # R 1 0 27 12 40 0 0 3 1 4 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 5.00 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 324.00 17.00 341.00 366.21 25.21 1.07 34 TOTL # R 77 9 84 9 186 21 180 20 527 59 # R 14 1 19 8 27 2 0 2 1 3 SUMMARY CHART IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 900 23 28 9 4 59 7 5 9 9 21 20 2 0 2 1 3 5 4 3 DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 458 275 397 275 31 61 300 5493 3296 4761 3296 366 732 3604 201 121 174 121 13 27 0 2415 1449 2093 1449 161 322 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 35 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 15 10 8 10 3 4 211 1.24 5.20 1.73 ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ****t 18 LOCATION SHIFT FRONT FRONT FRONT FRONT FRONT OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN PROGRAM MANAGER WARDEN'S SECETARY TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 36 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 5 7 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 POSITION ***** FRONT OFFICE FRONT OFFICE FRONT OFFICE OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N 1.0 2.0 2.0 2 1 0 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE KITCHEN KITCHEN WAREHOUSE OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F N N N N N N N 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 6 0 0 0 0 4 4 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE N N N N N N N N 1.0 1 1.0 0 8.0 0 1.0 14 4.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 3.0 0 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 20.00 N Y Y N N N 1.0 18 1.00 3.0 0 5.20 3.0 0 10.39 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 19.59 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES RECORDS CLERK CLERK CASE MANAGERS CASE MANAGER SUPERVIS TEACHER CHAPLAIN SECRETARY UNIT CLERKS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL SUPPORT OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISO MAINTENANCE REPAIRMAN ELECTRICIAN PLUMBER FOOD SUPERVISOR FOOD MANAGER WAREHOUSEMAN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MANAGER ACCOUNT CLERK SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION RECORDS OFFICE RECORDS OFFICE UNITS A,B,C,D PROGRAM CENTER UNIT CLASSROOMS CHAPEL PROGRAM CENTER UNIT OFFICES HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PHYSICIAN MEDICAL SPECIALIST PSYCH. AIDES DENTIST PSYCHOLOGIST OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: INFIRMARY INFIRMARY SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT INFIRMARY SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT INFIRMARY 37 OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS POSITION ***** N N Y Y 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6 8 0 0 1.00 6.00 5.20 3.46 15.66 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS Y Y 1.0 1.0 0 0 5.20 5.20 10.39 OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS N N Y Y Y Y Y 3.0 2 3.00 3.0 11 3.00 4.0 0 20.78 2.0 0 6.93 1.0 0 3.46 1.0 0 1.73 2.0 0 10.39 49.29 DAY&EVE,ALL DAYCEVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 1.0 0 0 0 3.46 6.93 3.46 13.85 DAY,M-F N 3.0 0 3.00 3.00 TOWER PERIMETER UNITS UNITS UNIT CONTROL CENTERS UNIT CENTERS A C B SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT DISCIPLINARY UNIT INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD KITCHEN OFFICERS YARD SUPERVISORS GYMNASIUM CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT MANAGERS UNIT LIEUTENANTS UNIT CONTROL CENTERS UNIT BACKUPS SPECIAL PGRMS. BACKUP SPECIAL PROGRAMS ROVE DISCIPLINARY UNIT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** CONTROL CENTER CONTROL CENTER CONTROL CENTER REAR CONTROL CENTER FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PERIMETER SECURITY TOWER PERIMETER ROVER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CHIEF OF SECURITY SHIFT LIEUTENANTS CONTROL CENTER REAR ENTRANCE CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION KITCHEN YARD GYMNASIUM EXTERNAL AND OTHER TRANSPORT OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: GARAGE 153.79 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 38 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 5.0 5.0 12.0 20.0 19.6 15.7 10.4 49.3 13.9 3.0 153.8 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S:. TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 12 30 13 18 83 6 8 3 5 21 6.02 % 3.3 3.3 7.8 13.0 12.7 10.2 6.8 32.1 9.0 2.0 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. 1.3 1.3 3.0 5.0 4.9 3.9 2.6 12.3 3.5 0.8 38.4 EVE i R 0 3 12 14 29 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 0 1 3 4 7 NITE # R 0 0 6 9 15 0 0 2 2 4 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 90.00 0.00 90.00 92.20 2.20 1.02 39 TOTL # R 22 40 49 43 154 6 10 12 11 38 # R 18 4 1 0 0 0 4 1 8 2 SUMMARY CHART OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C. POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 115 77 61 77 23 31 0 1383 922 738 922 277 369 0 77 51 41 51 15 21 0 924 616 493 616 185 246 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 40 ######################################################################### CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: 365 104 261 18 10 8 3 2 2 218 1.20 5.03 1.68 COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: l######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 4 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION LEVEL 4 ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 UNITS l-4 WARDEN UNITS 5-7 INTERNAL AFFAIRS TRAINING:3 TRAINING:3 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN SECRETARY: SUPT ASSOC. WARDEN ASSOC. WARDEN SECRETARY: A.S. SECRETARY: A.S. DIR. OF PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE ASST. DIR. OF PROGRAMS INVESTIGATOR TRAIN.DIR SCTRY:TRAIN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 41 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 7 1.0 10 1.0 0 0.5 0 1.0 2 1.0 0 1.0 3 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.50 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CLERKS/TYPISTS FINANCE DIRECTOR ACCOUNTANTS SECRETARY: FINANCE CLERKS COMMISSARY MANAGER CLERKS PERSONNEL SPECIALIST CLERK BUSINESS MANAGER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 MAIL C RECORDS COMM: 3 COMMISSARY: 3 BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL INDUSTRIES OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 N N N N N N N N * N N N N N 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS DIRECTOR LOCKSMITH FOREMEN SECRETARY DRIVER PAINTER MAINT. GENERALIST PLUMBER ENGINEERS & JANITORS ELECTRICIAN ELECTRONICS FIRE & SAFETY GROUNDSKEEPER LAUNDRY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MAINTENANCE ARMORY MAINTENANCE DIR.MAINTENANCE COMMISSARY: 3 MAINT: 3 MAINT: 3 MAINT: 3 BOILER MAINT: 3 MAINT: 3 MAINT: 3 MAINT: 3 LAUNDRY: 2 42 DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,M-F DAY&EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- Y SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR CLERKS/TYPISTS CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER LEGAL TECH DIRECTOR TEACHERS VOTEC TEACHER CHAPLAIN SUPERINTENDENT CLERKS FACTORY MANAGERS FOREMEN SUPERVISORS FOREMEN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION DATA & INFORMATION LEVEL 4 COMPLEX 1 COMPLEX 2 COMPLEX 3 COMPLEX 4 DISC:5 COMPLEX 7 COMPLEX 6 DISC UNIT EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION:3 CHAPEL INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 2 2 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 32.50 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL N N * N N N * * N N N N N N * 1.0 10 1.00 1.0 2 1.00 1.0 0 5.00 1.0 0 1.00 4.0 0 4.00 1.0 9 1.00 2.0 0 10.00 1.0 0 3.50 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 0.5 0 0.50 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 0.6 0 2.00 34.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF NURSE NURSES/PARAMEDICS OCCUPATIONAL THERApIs PSYCHOLOGISTS SUPERVISOR BEHAVI'ORAL AIDES PSYCH NURSES SCTRY':MDIR DENTIST DENT.TECH. PHARMACIST LAB.TECH RECORDS TECH CLERKS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL MEDICAL:3 INFIRMARY MEDICAL MEDICAL BEHAV. AIDES MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL:3 MEDICAL:3 MEDICAL:3 MEDICAL:3 MEDICAL:3 MEDICAL:3 MENTAL HEALTH 43 POSITION ***** PM AM LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 LEVEL4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 ID & COUNT CONTROL 5 EVE,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAYtEVE,ALL DAYCEVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALG DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL N N * * Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 12 1.0 10 1.2 2 0.2 15 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 EVENING,ALL CONTINUOUS Y Y 2.0 1.0 NIGHT,ALL OFFICE HRS EVENING,ALL WKND,DAYS DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL WKND,DAYS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVE,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS NIGHT,ALL EVENING,ALL * N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y * Y N Y Y 8.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 3.35 3.35 3.35 1.68 3.35 24.09 PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CAPTAIN CAPTAIN SHIFT OFFICER IN CHAR ASST. SHIFT OIC ASST SHIFT OIC CONTROL CONTROL CENTER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL -LOCATION ROOF SECURITY PERIMETER 0 0 3.35 5.03 8.38 UNIT SUPERVISION SQUAD ROVERS UNIT MANAGER C.CONTROL C.CONTROL OFFICERS C.CONTROL C.CONTROL OFFICERS UNIT-MANAGER C.CONTROL OFFICERS C.CONTROL OFFICERS UNIT MANAGERS C.CONTROL OFFICERS OFFICERS UNIT MANAGER C.CONTROL OFFICERS DAY OFFICER CASE MANAGER C.CONTROL OFFICERS CONTROL C.MANAGER OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: LEVEL 2 COMPLEX l&2 COMPLEX 1 COMPLEX 1 COMPLEX 1 COMPLEX 2 COMPLEX 2 COMPLEX 2 COMPLEX 3&4 COMPLEX 3 COMPLEX 3 COMPLEX 4 COMPLEX 4 DISC C SEG DISC:5 DISC:5 DISC & SEG COMPLEX 6&7 COMPLEX 6 COMPLEX 6 COMPLEX 6 COMPLEX 6 COMPLEX 7 COMPLEX 7 MEDICAL:2&3 MEDICAL:2&3 MEDICAL UNIT MEDICAL UNIT 44 0 14.00 20 1.00 0 1.68 0 0.48 0 6.70 0 1.68 0 0.48 0 6.70 22 1.00 0 3.35 0 6.70 0 3.35 0 6.70 9 2.00 0 5.03 0 6.70 0 5.03 21 1.00 0 3.35 0 6.70 0 1.20 0 1.00 0 3.35 0 13.50 0 5.03 22 0.50 0 1.68 0 3.35 113.26 POSITION ***** FAC- II SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICERS SQUAD ACTIVITIES COORD CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT L_OCATION VISITING LEVEL 2 RECREATION EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVE,M-F * * N 4.8 3.9 1.0 0 8.00 0 13.00 0 1.00 22.00 DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 1.0 0 3.35 0 10.06 0 1.20 14.61 EXTERNAL AND OTHER TRANSPORT OFFICERS UTILITY OFFICERS UTILITY OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OUTSIDE ALL AREAS ALL AREAS 299.33 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 45 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 11.5 17.0 22.0 32.5 34.0 24.1 8.4 113.3 22.0 14.6 299.3 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: % 3.8 5.7 7.3 10.9 11.4 8.0 2.8 37.8 7.3 4.9 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 46 12 41 11 32 8 16 4 135 36 5 1 15 4 28 7 22 6 70 18 7.12 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 3.0 4.5 5.8 8.6 8.9 6.3 2.2 29.8 5.8 3.8 78.8 $1,264,371 NITE # R 1 3 12 4 21 0 1 3 1 5 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 181.00 7.00 188.00 182.33 5.67 0.97 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 46 TOTL # R 51 67 113 69 299 13 18 30 18 79 # R 13 15 14 5 21 3 4 4 1 5 SUMMARY CHART MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 273 152 122 46 30 30 127 3282 1823 1459 547 365 365 1526 176 98 78 29 20 20 0 2106 1170 936 351 234 234 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 47 -- .,,- CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT U.S.P. MARION STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 15 10 6 5 2 2 221 1.18 4.96 1.65 ######################################################################~ STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 8 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION WARDEN PROGRAMS OPERATIONS ASSOC WARDENS AW-P CAMP CAMP OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN SECRETARY ASSOC. WARDEN ASSOC. WARDEN SECRETARY DATA ANALYST ADMINISTRATOR CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 48 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 0 10 6 0 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MANAGER PERSONNEL OFFICER CLERK ASST.BUSINESS MANAGER CLERKS PURCHASING AGENTS ACCOUNTING SUPERV CASHIERS CLERK MANAGERS TRAINERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE MAIL ROOM BUSINESS OFFICE TRUST FUND BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE RELIEF PERSONNEL PERSONNEL OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1 1.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 10 2.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 2,0 0 2.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 15.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS CHIEF MECH. SERV. FOOD SERVICE ADM GENERAL FOREMAN MAINTENANCE STAFF SUPERVISOR UTILITIES OPERATORS UTILITY REPAIRMEN STAFF SUPPLY CLERKS ASST. MANAGER COOKS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MAINTENANCE KITCHEN MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE UTILTIIES BOILER UTILITIES CLOTHING SERVICES STORES FOOD SERVICES KITCHEN 49 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 13 1.00 N 13.0 0 13.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 * 1.2 0 6.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 * 3.3 0 11.00 41.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SUPERINTENDENT CHIEF, C&P PRINCIPAL ADM. ASST. FACTORY MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT SENIOR CASE MANAGER SENIOR CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGERS CLERK CLERK COORDINATOR RECREATION SPECS TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHER CHAPLAINS RECORDS CLERKS CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION INDUSTRY CLASS.&PAROLE EDUCATION CLASS&PAROLE FURNITURE PRINT PLANT CLASS&PAROLE CLASS&PAROLE UNITS CLASS&PAROLE CLASS&PAROLE GROUP ACTIVITIES RECREATION VOCATIONAL ACADEMIC RESOURCE CENTER CHAPEL RECORDS RECORDS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 2 1.0 4 1.0 10 1.0 3 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 2 1.0 2 2.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 2.0 0 4.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 28.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT MEDICAL OFFICER ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST PSYCHOLOGISTS CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: INFIRMARY HOSPITAL PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY 50 0 0 3 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 POSITION ***** N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 13 1.0 0 1.0 19 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 9 1.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 1 1.0 5 2.0 0 CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,M-F Y Y 7.0 1.0 0 34.72 0 2.36 37.08 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F N 1.0 N 1.0 Y 12.1) Y 2.0 0 1.00 0 1.00 0 59.52 0 2.36 63.88 DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0 1.65 0 13.23 0 1.18 0 1.18 0 2.36 0 1.18 20.79 CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F Y Y Y 1.0 4.0 1.0 0 4.96 0 13.23 0 1.18 19.37 1.00 1.00 4.96 1.00 3.31 4.96 1.65 4.96 4.96 1.65 4.72 1.18 2.36 37.72 TOWERS ENTRANCE SUBSTANCE PGM CONTROL PGM UNITS TWO-DAY POSTS INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD RECEIV & DISCHARGE ACTIVITY OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER RECREATION CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAYCEVE,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT MANAGER MANAGER UNIT OFFICERS UNITS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** CUSTODY CHIEF CORR SUPERV CORR.SERVICES SECURITY CORR SERVICES CORRIDORS CORRIDORS CONTROL ROOM RECEPTION LOBBY CORR SERVICES CORR SERVICES MAIL ROOM FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PERIMETER SECURITY TOWERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CHIEF CORR. SUPERV CLERK CORR SUPERV SECURITY OFFICER CORR SUPERV OFFCIERS OFFICERS CONTROL CONTROL INFORMATION DESK CORR SUPERV CORR SUPERV OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION RECEPTION REC AREAS TOOL ROOM RECREATION VISITING TWO-DAY POSTS EXTERNAL AND OTHER L OTHER OTHER OTHER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: NOT DEFINED NOT DEFINED NOT DEFINED TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 276.84 51 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN U.S.P. MARION POSITIONS AREA 8.0 15.0 41.0 28.0 6.0 37.7 37.1 63.9 20.8 19.4 -- ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 276.8 DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 52 9 34 6 16 3 39 7 141 23 % 2.9 5.4 14.8 10.1 2.2 13.6 13.4 23.1 7.5 7.0 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. 1 0 2 4 7 NITE # R 1 0 12 12 25 0 0 2 2 4 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 4.90 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 161.00 0.00 161.00 178.84 17.84 1.11 52 . 1.3 2.5 6.8 4.7 1.0 6.3 6.2 10.6 3.5 3.2 46.1 EVE # R 5 0 12 24 41 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. TOTL # R 64 34 64 115 277 11 6 11 19 46 # R 2 3 3 8 11 0 1 1 1 2 SUMMARY CHART U.S.P. MARION POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 224 149 89 75 30 30 0 2683 1788 1073 894 358 358 0 123 82 49 41 16 16 0 1470 980 588 490 196 196 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 53 ####B#################################################################### CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: 365 104 261 14 13 7 17 1 1 208 1.25 5.27 1.76 COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 20 FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT LOCATION TOTL ADMINISTRATEON SUPERINTENDENT ASST. SUPT. CLERK/STENO ASST. SUPT. CLERK/STENO ASST. SUPT. CLERK/STENO CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OFFICE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE SECURITY/OPERATIONS OFFICE ASST. SUPT. SECURITY OFFICE TREATMENT ASST. SUPT. TREATMENT OFFICE 54 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N 1.0 4 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 POSITION ***** BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANTS SUPERVISOR CLERK/TYPISTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 9 0 0 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 BUILDING & GROUNDS BUILDING & GROUNDS WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE FOOD OPERATIONS KITCHEN POWER PLANT POWER PLANT BOILER INVENTORY OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAYtEVE,ALL CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N * * N * * N 1.0 11 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 0.6 2 2.00 4.3 0 15.00 1.0 1 1.00 0.6 0 2.00 0.9 0 5.00 1.0 0 1.00 38.00 DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL N 11.0 N 2.0 N 1.0 N 1.0 * 1.4 0 11.00 0 2.00 1 1.00 0 1.00 0 5.00 20.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N * N N 0 1.00 9 1.00 0 0.75 0 0.50 0 1.00 0 10.00 0 2.00 0 3.00 19.25 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES COUNSELORS TYPISTS CUSTODIAN CLERK/TYPIST SUPERVISORS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE SUPPORT OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT SUPERVISORS OPERATOR PLUMBERS ELECTRICIANS CARPENTER CUSTODIAN MANAGERS COOKS SUPERINTENDENT SHIFT SUPERVISORS FIREMEN STOREKEEPER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL SHIFT LOCATION TREATMENT TREATMENT RECORDS RECORDS RECREATION MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PSYCHOLOGIST NURSE RN PHYSICIAN DENTIST NURSE NURSE TECHNICIANS X-RAY & LAB TECHNICIA CLERK/TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TREATMENT MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL 5 5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.9 2.0 3.0 POSITION ***** N Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY,ALL Y Y Y Y 1.0 15 1.76 4.0 0 21.08 1.0 0 1.76 1.0 0 1.76 26.35 DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL Y 5.0 Y 15.0 Y 1.0 Y 2.0 Y 2.0 Y 12.0 OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F 5 1.00 5 5.27 1 5.27 3 31.62 0 2.51 45.67 PERIMETER SECURITY TOWERS 1-4 MAIN GATE TOWER 5 BUILDINGS 1-5 BLGD l-5,CTRL A-C SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UN Bl,UC: DEATH ROW Bl, A+B POD B2-5, A-C PODS 2 1 0 0 0 0 17.57 79.05 5.27 10.54 7.03 42.16 161.62 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 0 1.0 16 1.0 0 1.0 0 5.0 0 5.0 0 3.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.00 1.76 3.51 1.76 8.78 6.27 3.76 1.25 2.51 30.61 Y 4.0 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD CORPORAL SUPERVISOR OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F UNIT SUPERVISION SUPERVISORS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SECURITY SECURITY MASTER CONTROL BUILDINGS 1-5 + MEDIC SALLY PORT PERIMETER SECURITY SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CONTROL POINTS CHIEF SECURITY OFFICE SHIFT COMMANDER LIEUTENANT UNIT CONTROL ROOMS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT -LOCATION COMMISSARY COMPOUND KITCHEN MAILROOM UTILITY ACTIVITY CMSY,PROP CTRL,SPLY LAW LIBRARY GROUNDS CREW EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORTATION TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 0 5.02 5.02 361.53 56 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. POSITIONS AREA STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: RATE PER 100 P. 1.9 7.0 1.9 8.0 2.2 2.2 38.0 10.5 10.6 20.0 5.5 5.6 19.3 5.3 5.3 12.6 12.7 45.7 26.4 7.3 7.3 44.7 44.9 161.6 8.5 30.6 8.5 1.4 1.4 5.0 361.5 100.0 100.4 ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL % 35 27 37 42 141 10 7 10 12 39 39,861 38,889 $ 184,723 $ 97,222 $ 120,312 $ 177,610 $ 102,476 $ 628,522 $ 119,053 $ 19,519 $1,528,190 EVE # R NITE # R 6 2 4 1 37 10 13 4 61 17 1 0 2 1 18 5 12 3 33 9 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 5.10 231.00 26.00 257.00 269.28 12.28 1.05 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 57 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. TOTL # R 53 39 162 108 362 15 11 45 30 ** # R 13 1 0 0 12 4 0 0 0 3 SUMMARY CHART VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C. POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 360 25 39 17 9 100 5 5 15 11 45 30 4 0 0 3 10 10 5 #################################### ######################### ##############################I######### ################# ######### xxxxxxxxxx # # # # # ##### ############### ########### ############################################## ############################## ##### # ### ########## ########## ##### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 314 292 157 381 22 22 451 3770 3501 1885 4578 269 269 5408 108 100 54 131 8 8 0 1292 1199 646 1568 92 92 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 58 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 14 17 10 5 2 2 211 1.24 5.20 1.73 ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 12 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION WARDEN WARDEN SECURITY GRIEVANCE OFFICE SERVICES SWITCHBOARD RECORDS OFFICE SERVICES RECORDS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL . TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN EXEC ASST SECRETARY ASSOC WARDEN COORDINATOR MANAGER OPERATOR SECRETARY CLERK CLERK TYPISTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 59 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 11, 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 5 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 12.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR ASSOC WARDEN V&C SUPERVISOR V&C STAFF CLERK INSTRUCTOR ACCOUNTANT CLERKS MESSENGER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERSONNEL FINANCE COMMISSARY COMMISSARY PERSONNEL TRAINING FINANCE FINANCE GARAGE PREVENTIVE SECURITY OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N * * N * * * N N N N 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 2 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 2 1.00 1.0 11 1.00 1.0 8 1.00 1.0 5 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 4.0 0 4.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 3.0 0 3.00 1.0 0 5.00 1.0 0 5.00 1.0 2 1.00 1.7 2 3.00 5.2 0 18.00 1.7 0 3.00 1.0 5 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 70.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS ASSOC WARDEN STORES OFFICER STOREMEN SUPERVISOR COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR PAINTER CARPENTER METAL WORKERS DRIVERS MASON GROUNDSKEEPER FOREMAN FOREMAN TECHNICIAN PLUMBERS ELECTRICIANS SHIFT ENGINEERS ASST. SHIFT ENG SUPERVISOR ASST SUPERVISOR COOKS HELPERS SUPERVISOR CLERK SUPERVISOR CLEANERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TECHNICAL SERVICES WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE E&W PREVENTIVE MAINT WORKS ENGINEERING GARAGE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE GARAGE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE LABORERS RELIEF MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE BOILER BOILER FOOD SERVICE FOOD SERVICE FOOD SERVICE KITCHEN INMATE SERVICES INMATE SERVICES CLOTHING CLOTHING 60 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ASSOC WARDEN ASSOC WARDEN ASSOC WARDEN ASSOC WARDEN CLERK SUPERVISOR FOREMEN CLERK CHAPLAINS SUPERVISOR CLERK CL. OFFICERS HEAD CLERK INSTRUCTOR STAFF LIBRARIAN SUPERVISOR STAFF COORDINATOR CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER SUPERVISOR INSTRUCTORS SUPERVISOR TEACHER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION INDUSTRIES SOCIALIZATION OPER & ADMIN EDUC & TRAINING INDUSTRIES IND PRODUCTION INDUSTRIES SOCIALIZATION CHAPEL CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIAL & CULT DEV LIBRARY RECREATION RECREATION RECORDS RECORDS SENTENCES ADMISSIONS TRAINING INMATE TRAINING EDUCATION EDUCATION OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 9 1.00 N 1.0 6 1.00 N 1.0 2 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 16 1.00 N 16.0 0 16.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 6 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 5.0 0 5.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 * 1.4 0 5.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 7 1.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 58.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS N N N * N MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PHYSICIAN SENIOR OFFICER CLERK HEALTH CARE OFFICERS PSYCHOLOGISTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE SOCIALIZATION 61 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 3.0 1 2 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 13.00 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CONTROL POINTS CLERK CLERK SUPERVISORS SUPERVISORS SUPERVISORS OFFICER CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT -LOCATION AW SECURITY AW SECURITY DUTIES DUTIES DUTIES PREVENTIVE SECURITY U N&T S J CONTROL J CONTROL U CORRIDOR CAGE OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVENING,ALL 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1 1.00 0 1.00 68 2.00 23 2.00 15 2.00 0 1.00 0 1.73 0 10.39 0 3.46 0 5.20 0 3.46 0 2.47 0 1.73 37.45 PERIMETER SECURITY CONTROL TOWER TOWERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS ROVER FOOT PATROL FOOT PATROL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: #1-4 MOBILE PATROL A OUTPOST OUTPOSTS BCD PER. SECURITY PERIMETER PERIMETER 62 DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 0 1.73 4.0 0 20.78 1.0 0 5.20 1.0 0 5.20 3.0 0 15.59 1.0 0 1.73 1.0 0 1.75. 1.0 0 1.73 53.68 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL #l U E LIVING UNIT E.C.A. E CONTROL E.C.A. E LIVING UNIT J LIVING UNIT J LIVING UNIT A LIVING UNIT A LIVING UNIT A CONTROL A CONTROL HOSPITAL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.46 3.46 10.39 5.20 10.39 5.20 17.32 10.39 3.46 10.39 3.46 5.20 3.46 5.20 96.98 DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.73 3.46 2.47 5.20 3.46 1.73 3.46 3.46 24.99 DAY,ALL DAY,ALL Y Y 4.0 1.0 0 0 6.93 1.73 8.66 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT UNIT SUPERVISION HOSPITAL GALLERY OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION I.D.BUILDING N AREA N AREA CONSTRUCTION TRAINING V&C RECREATION N AREA EXTERNAL AND OTHER ESCORT OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OUTSIDE PICKUP TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 388.77 63 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION POSITIONS AREA DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 3.1 3.1 12.0 14.0 3.6 3.7 18.0 18.4 70.0 14.9 15.2 58.0 3.4 13.0 9.8 37.5 13.8 14.1 53.7 97.0 24.9 25.5 25.0 6.4 6.6 8.7 2.2 2.3 388.8 190.0 102.0 ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL % 73 62 25 38 197 19 16 7 10 52 EVE # R 7 2 3 1 20 5 23 6 53 14 NITE # R 2 1 11 13 28 1 0 3 4 7 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 7.05 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 223.00 0.00 223.00 221.76 1.24 0.99 64 TOTL # R 96 71 97 125 389 25 19 25 33 ** # R 9 2 3 1 2 1 28 7 16 4 SUMMARY CHART MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 259 314 185 92 37 37 0 3105 3770 2218 1109 444 444 0 195 237 139 70 28 28 0 2338 2839 1670 835 334 334 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD #########f################################################################ CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1,. STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 14 13 7 17 1 1 208 1.25 5.27 1.76 ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 3 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION SOCIAL SERVICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN ADMIN. ASST. STAFF ASST. CLERK/STENO DEPUTY WARDEN DIRECTOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 66 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 10 1.0 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 POSITION ***** OFFICE HRS N 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 LAUNDRY SERVICE LAUNDRY LAUNDRY MAINTENANCE FOOD SERVICE FOOD SERVICE DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL N N N N N * 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 1 4 0 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 11.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N N N N N 3.0 0 1.0 10 4.0 0 6.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 3.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES CASE MANAGERS PRINCIPAL TEACHERS TEACHERS CHAPLAIN COORDINATOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** ACCOUNTING SUPPORT OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MANAGER OPERATORS SUPERVISORS DIRECTOR SUPERVISORS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT LOCATION CLASSIFICATION EDUCATION VOCATIONAL SCHOOL ACADEMIC EDUCATION CHAPEL RECREATION MEDICAL AND TREATMENT SOCIAL WORKER SPECIALIST NURSE PRACTITIONER TECHNICIAN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: CASE MANAGEMENT MENTAL HEALTH MEDICAL MEDICAL 67 HRS HRS HRS HRS 0 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 POSITION ***** N * * Y N Y 1.0 1.1 0.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 9 0 0 0 1.00 6.00 5.00 7.03 1.00 1.25 21.28 #l #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 GATE DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 1.25 5.27 5.27 5.27 5.27 1.25 24.85 & & & & CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL WKND,DAYS Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2 0 0 0 5.27 7.03 1.76 1.00 15.06 DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 1.76 1.25 1.25 4.27 DAY,M-F Y 1.0 0 1.25 1.25 TOWER TOWER TOWER TOWER TOWER TOWER FRONT UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS DINING DINING DINING DINING INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F UNIT SUPERVISION TUNNEL OFFICERS TUNNEL OFFICERS TUNNEL OFFICERS TUNNEL OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY CLOCK MAN FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CHIEF CORR. OFFICER SHIFT SUPERVISOR OFFICER ON DUTY DESK OFFICER TRAINING OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION LINE SUSPENSION LAUNDRY VISITING ROOM EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORTATION TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 104.71 68 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN S. CAROLINA: MANNING C-1. POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 6.0 1.0 11.0 16.0 4.0 21.3 24.8 15.1 4.3 1.3 104.7 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 17 4 20 5 6 1 18 4 61 14 % 5.7 1.0 10.5 15.3 3.8 20.3 23.7 14.4 4.1 1.2 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. 1.4 0.2 2.6 3.8 1.0 5.1 5.9 3.6 1.0 0.3 24.9 EVE # R 1 0 3 8 12 0 0 1 2 3 NITE # R TOTL # R 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 7 2 18 4 20 5 15 4 52 12 105 25 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 3.74 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 58.00 0.00 58.00 66.71 8.71 1.15 69 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. # R 1 0 2 0 0 0 11 3 1 0 SUMMARY CHART S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I. POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 420 25 14 3 2 25 15 4 4 5 4 12 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 ########################################### ######################### ############## ### ## ######################### ############### #### #### ###### ##### ############# # # ### # # # # DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 78 72 39 95 6 6 0 934 867 467 1134 67 67 0 44 41 22 54 3 3 0 532 494 266 646 38 38 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 70 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 25 11 11 3 1 1 209 1.25 5.24 1.75 ##########i############################################################## STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 6 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 71 N N 1.0 1.0 6 0 1.00 1.00 2.00 ***** BUSINESS MANAGEMENT HEAD ACCOUNT CLERK ACCOUNT CLERKS TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N 1.0 4.0 1.0 5 0 0 1.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 KITCHEN KITCHEN MAINTENENCE GARAGE OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N * N N 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1 0 1 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SENIOR COUNSELOR COUNSELOR AIDE TYPIST TEACHER TEACHER CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE SUPPORT OPERATIONS HEAD COOK COOKS GEN. MECHANIC MAINTENENCE ASST. CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT LOCATION POSITION CASE MANAGEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT ACADEMIC EDUCATION VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RECORDS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS MEDICAL AND TREATMENT , CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 0.00 72 POSITION ***** SHIFT CUSTODY CUSTODY CONTROL CENTER OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL CONTROL POINTS LIEUTENANT SERGEANTS & CAPTAIN OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION N * Y 1.0 1.1 1.0 1 5 0 PERIMETER SECURITY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** DORMITORY DORMITORY DORMITORY NIGHT,ALL EVENING,ALL WKND,DAYS Y Y Y 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 0 5.24 5.24 1.50 11.99 EVENING,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,ALL WKND,DAYS Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.50 7.49 2.50 1.75 0.50 15.73 DAY,ALL Y 1.0 0 1.75 1.75 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** 0.00 UNIT SUPERVISION OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** 1.00 6.00 1.75 8.75 RECREATION/PROGRAMS WORK CREWS COMMUNITY PROJECTS GROUNDS/HOUSEKEEPING VISITING EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORTATION TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 73 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 2.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 12.0 15.7 1.7 58.2 DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 12 8 6 4 3 2 14 9 35 23 3.46 38.00 4.00 42.00 38.22 3.78 0.91 74 % 3.4 10.3 10.3 10.3 0.0 15.0 0.0 20.6 27.0 3.0 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 1.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 8.0 10.5 1.2 38.8 EVE # R NITE # R 1 0 3 3 7 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 2 2 5 0 0 2 1 3 TOTL # R 14 9 6 4 12 8 26 17 58 39 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # R MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 1 3 SUMMARY CHART N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 150 24 23 5 3 39 0 3 9 4 8 17 0 0 0 ############### ######################## ######################## ##### ### ####################################### ### ########## ##### ######## ################## 1 # 2 ## 2 ## 2 ## DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 80 35 35 10 3 3 70 955 420 420 115 38 38 836 42 18 18 5 2 2 0 500 220 220 60 20 20 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 75 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT F.P.C. ALLENWOOD STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS ######################################################################### CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING . POSITION ***** 365 104 261 15 10 6 5 2 2 221 1.18 4.96 1.65 7 LOCATION SHIFT AD M I N ISTR ATION ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT ASST. SUPT. SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 76 N N N 1.0 5 1.0 16 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SHIFT TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OFFICER BUSINESS MANAGER BUSINESS MANAGER ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT CLERK CLERK CASHIER AGENT CLERK ASSISTANT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES COMMISSARY TRUST FUND BUSINESS OFFICE PURCHASING FISCAL PERSONNEL OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 N N N N * N N * N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 21.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS FOOD ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF OF MECH. SERVICE SAFETY SPEC FOREMAN COOK FOREMEN MECHANIC FOREMAN ENGINEERS FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMEN MANAGER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F KITCHEN MAINTENANCE SAFETY WAREHOUSE KITCHEN AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRIC BOILER GROUNDS PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION LAUNDRY 77 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SUPERINTENDENT RECORDS OFFICER CHAPLAINS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN FOREMAN CASEWORKERS CLERKS RECORDS SPEC DATA COORDINATOR TEACHER RECREATION SPEC COUNSELOR TEACHER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION INDUSTRIES RECORDS CHAPEL EDUCATION ASST SUPT INDUSTRIES WOOD SHOP WOOD MACHINE CARPENTRY UPHOLSTERY WOODCRAFT PAINT SHOP UPHOLSTERY UNITS CLASSIFICATION RECORDS RECORDS ACADEMIC GYM & YARD VOCATIONAL VOCATIONAL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 3 1.0 1 2.0 0 1.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 4.0 2 2.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS N * N 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 27.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR INFIRMARY MEDICAL PHYSICIANS ASST MEDICAL CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 78 2 0 0 1.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 POSITION FAC- SHIFT LOCATION TOR ***** CONTROL POINTS CHIEF CORR SUPERV SUPERVISORS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** # SPAN TOTL OF CONTROL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CUSTODY CORRECTIONS CONTROL ROOM N Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 3 0 PERIMETER SECURITY 0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT MANAGERS CORR COUNSELORS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** UNITS UNITS UNITS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS EVENING,ALL N Y Y 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 0 2.00 4.96 1.65 8.61 DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL Y Y Y 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 3.31 1.65 1.65 6.61 N 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** 1.00 4.96 4.96 10.92 REC & DISCHARGE VISITING MAIL ROOM EXTERNAL AND OTHER OTHER POSTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: UNSPECIFIED OFFICE TOTAL STAFF COUNT: HRS 95.15 79 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN F.P.C. ALLENWOOD POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 3.0 11.0 21.0 27.0 6.0 10.9 0.0 8.6 6.6 1.0 95.1 DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 28 8 30 8 3 1 8 2 69 18 % 3.2 11.6 22.1 28.4 6.3 11.5 0.0 9.1 7.0 1.1 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 0.8 2.9 5.6 7.2 1.6 2.9 0.0 2.3 1.8 0.3 25.4 EVE # R NITE # R 2 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 2 5 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 3.24 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 28.00 0.00 28.00 27.15 0.85 0.97 80 TOTL # R 35 9 33 9 9 2 19 5 95 25 # R 2 4 12 4 5 1 1 3 1 1 SUMMARY CHART F.P.C. ALLENWOOD POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 370 18 18 2 ##################################### ################## ################## ## ########################## 25 0 3 ### 9 ######### 9 ######### 2 ## 5 ##### 1 # 1 # 3 ### 1 # 1 # 1# 1 # 0 # DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 34 23 14 11 5 5 0 407 271 163 136 54 54 0 85 57 34 28 11 11 0 1020 680 408 340 136 136 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 81 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 15 10 8 3 2 2 221 1.18 4.96 1.65 11 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION SUPT. ADM ASST OPERATIONS A.S.OPERATIONS A.S.OPERATIONS INVESTIGATOR PROGRAMS A.S.PROGRAMS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION SUPERINTENDENT ADM. ASST. CLERK STENO ASST. SUPT. SECRETARY INVESTIGATOR CLERK ASST. SUPT. SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 82 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N 1.0 6 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 8 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 12 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SECRETARY PERSONNEL REP. CLERK BUSINESSADMINISTRATO BUSINESSMANAGER CLERK CLERKS ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNT CLERKS ACCOUNT CLERK CLERK CASHIER SUPERVISOR SUPPLY STAFF CLERK CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION SUPT. PERSONNEL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE TRUST FUND TRUST FUND BUSINESS OFFICE COMMISSARY COMMISSARY SERVICE CENTER SERVICE CENTER OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 N N N N N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N 1.0 3 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 1.0 9 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 8.0 1 8.00 6.0 0 6.00 1.0 4 1.00 1.0 2 3.31 1.0 0 4.96 1.0 2 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 12 1.00 2.0 0 3.31 1.0 0 1.65 2.0 0 3.31 2.0 0 3.31 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 46.84 0 1 0 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 19.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS SUPPLY SUPERV. SUPPLY STAFF SUPERVISOR CLERK SUPERVISORS ASSISTANTS SUPERVISOR ENGINEER ENGINEERS ENGINEER OPERATORS MANAGER COOKS COOKS COOKS COOKS MANAGER VEHICLE REPAIR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: STORES STORES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE UTILITIES BOILERS BOILERS WATER & SEWER WATER & SEWER FOOD SERVICE EARLY AM A.M. LATE AM EVENING LAUNDRY AGRICULTURE 83 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F NIGHT,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES SUPERVISOR CLERKS SUPERVISOR COUNSELORS SUPERVISOR CLERKS COORDINATOR COUNSELOR CLERK SUPERVISOR STAFF CHAPLAIN LIBRARIANS SUPERVISOR FOREMEN DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATORS TEACHERS COUNSELORS CLERKS VOCED TEACHERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION CLINICAL SERVICES CLINICAL SERVICES CASEWORK CASEWORK RECORDS RECORDS VOLUNTEERS RELEASE PREP RELEASE PREP ACTIVITY RECREATION CHAPEL LIBRARY AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE C. EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EVENING EVENING OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F EVE,M-F N 1.0 6 1.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 N 1.0 9 1.00 N 9.0 0 9.00 N 1.0 4 1.00 N 4.0 0 4.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 1 1.00 N 1.0 0 1.00 N 1.0 3 1.00 N 3.0 1 3.00 N 2.0 0 2.00 Y 2.0 0 6.61 N 1.0 4 1.00 N 3.0 0 3.00 N 1.0 6 1.00 N 6.0 10 6.00 N 29.0 0 29.00 N 6.0 0 6.00 N 7.0 0 7.00 N 4.5 0 4.50 N 14.0 0 14.00 105.11 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS N N N N N N N N N N Y MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PHYSICIAN ADMINISTRATOR CLERK PHYSICIAN DENTIST OPTOMETRIST PHARMACIST MED TECH CLERK HEAD NURSE NURSES/TECHS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL AMBULANCE AMBULANCE INFIRMARY INFIRMARY 84 0.5 14 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.0 0 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.96 14.46 POSITION ***** SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY ALL SHIFTS ASSIGN/ADJUST ASSIGN/ADJUST MAIL ROOM ZONES l-3 ZONES 4&5 ADM BLDG CONTROL ROOM MAIL ROOM OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL N N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 11 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 12 4.96 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 2 14.88 2.0 2 6.61 1.0 3 3.31 1.0 0 4.96 2.0 0 3.31 44.03 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS Y Y 1.0 1.0 0 0 4.96 4.96 9.92 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 l.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 4.96 9.92 4.96 14.88 4.96 14.88 4.96 14.88 4.96 14.88 4.96 9.92 4.96 4.96 9.92 3.31 3.31 135.58 FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PERIMETER SECURITY PATROL#l INFORMATION CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CHIEF CLERK TRAINING OFFICER CAPTAINS CAPTAIN CLERK OFFICER LIEUTENANTS LIEUTENANTS SERGEANT SECURITY OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION OUTSIDE ENTRANCE BLDG UNIT SUPERVISION SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANTS OFFICERS SERGEANT SERGEANT OFFICERS OFFICERS MEAL RELIEF CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 6 BLDG19,3FL BLDG19,lFL BLDG19,2&3 BLDG19,lFL BLGD19,lFL 85 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER SERGEANT OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION RECREATION IDENTIFICATION LOBBY DESK VISITING TELEPHONE MEAL RELIEF TOWN SQUARE EDUCATION EDUCATION VOCATIONAL ROUSTABOUTS LOCKSMITH ROAD GANG TELEPHONE YARD LIBRARY LAUNDROMAT LAKE SWIMMING PICNIC AREA COMMISSARY OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,M-F WKND,DAYS DAY&EVE,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS EVE,M-F N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.00 1.00 3.31 3.31 1.65 4.96 3.31 4.72 0.47 2.36 1.18 1.00 1.18 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 1.18 36.94 DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.00 1.00 2.00 EXTERNAL AND OTHER LIEUTENANT OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORT TOTAL. STAFF COUNT: 422.88 86 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 9.0 19.0 46.8 105.1 14.5 44.0 9.9 135.6 36.9 2.0 422.9 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: % 2.1 4.5 11.1 24.9 3.4 10.4 2.3 32.1 8.7 0.5 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. 1.6 3.3 8.1 18.1 2.5 7.6 1.7 23.4 6.4 0.3 72.9 DAY # R EVE # R NITE # R 60 10 93 16 28 5 43 7 224 39 4 1 22 4 28 5 19 3 73 13 3 1 1 0 26 4 8 1 38 7 4.14 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 238.00 0.00 238.00 228.47 9.53 0.96 87 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. TOTL # R 75 120 136 93 423 13 21 23 16 73 # R 10 2 0 0 4 1 61 11 30 5 SUMMARY CHART VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 580 18 39 13 7 73 0 4 13 21 23 16 2 0 11 5 5 5 4 XXXXX ################## ####################################### ############# ####### xxxxxxx #### ############I# ###################### ####################### ################# ## ########### ##### ##### ##### #### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 286 190 152 57 38 38 0 3427 2285 1828 685 457 457 0 243 162 130 49 32 32 0 2916 1944 1555 583 389 389 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 88 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT F.C.I. FORT WORTH STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 22 11 6 5 1 1 215 1.21 5.10 1.70 5 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION WARDEN ASSOC. WARDENS RESEARCH RESEARCH ASSOC WARDENS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN ASSOCIATE WARDEN ASSOCIATE WARDEN RESEARCH ANALYST SECRETARY SECRETARY RESEARCH ASSISTANT SECRETARY SECRETARY CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 89 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N 1.0 4 1.0 10 1.0 13 1.0 2 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OFFICER BUSINESS MANAGER COORDINATOR PERSONNEL MANAGER SECRETARIES ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASING AGENTS STOREKEEPER SUPPLY CLERKS RELIEF CLERK CLERKS OFFICE MANAGER ACCOUNTANT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE STAFF TRAINING BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL BUSINESS OFFICE ACCOUNTING BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE TRUST FUND INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 0 2 0 3 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21.00 N N N N N N * N N N * N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 1.0 2.4 1.0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 9 0 2 0 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 31.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS FACILITY MANAGER MANAGER ADMINISTRATOR SECRETARY CHIEF FOREMEN OPERATORS GENERAL FOREMEN FOREMEN ASST. ADMINISTRATOR COOK FOREMEN GENERAL FOREMAN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MAINTENANCE SAFETY FOOD SERVICE FACILITY MANAGER UTILITIES UTILITY MAINTENANCE BOILER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE MAINTENENCE FOOD SERVICE 'KITCHEN MAINTENANCE 90 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR PROGRAM OFFICER PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR CHAPLAIN COORDINATOR SECRETARY COORDINATOR TEACHER TEACHERS RECREATION SPECIALIST PUBLICATION MANAGER INDUSTRY MANAGER PRINTING MANAGER MANAGER DUPL EQUIP OPERATOR CLERK RECORDS CLERKS CASE MANAGERS CLERKS CASE MANAGER CLERKS CASE MANAGERS CLERKS CASE MANAGERS CLERKS CASE MANAGERS CLERKS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION CASE MANAGEMENT RECORDS COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATION INDUSTRIES CHAPEL WORK RELEASE EDUCATION LEARNING CENTER LEARNING CENTER EDUCATION RECREATION INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES SIGN FACTORY INDUSTRIES CASE MANAGEMENT RECORDS CHSU UNIT CHSU UNIT DRUG ABUSE UNIT DRUG ABUSE UNIT NARA UNIT NARA UNIT STAR UNIT STAR UNIT WOMEN'S UNIT WOMEN'S UNIT OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 13 1.00 1.0 5 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 9.0 0 9.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 1 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 3.0 0 3.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 51.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N N * N N 1.0 3 1.0 5 1.0 1 1.0 0 2.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 13 1.6 0 2.0 0 3.0 0 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST MEDICAL OFFICER ADMINISTRATOR PHARMACIST PHYSICIANS DENTISTS DENTAL TECH SUPERVISOR NURSES/MED TECHNICIAN CLERKS PSYCHOLOGISTS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PSYCHOLOGY MEDICAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL NURSES/MEDTECHS MEDICAL MEDICAL PSYCHOLOGY 91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 3.00 23.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL SECURITY CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS SECURITY CONTROL ROOM LOBBY SECURITY SECURITY OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N * Y Y N DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y Y CONTROL POINTS CHIEF SUPERVISOR CLERK CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS OFFICER OFFICER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION N 1.0 2 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.4 10 7.00 1.0 0 5.10 1.0 0 3.40 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 19.50 PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: I PATROL ENTRANCE ENTRANCE 92 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 6.80 1.21 1.21 9.23 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM NARA UNIT STAR UNIT WOMEN'S UNIT CHSU UNIT UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F WKND,DAYS N N N N N Y Y Y Y 1.0 4 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 3 1.00 1.0 5 1.00 1.0 4 1.00 5.0 0 25.49 1.0 0 3.40 1.0 0 1.21 1.0 0 0.49 35.59 DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F WKND,DAYS WKND,DAYS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F WKND,DAYS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 3.40 3.40 6.80 1.21 2.43 1.21 0.49 0.49 1.21 1.21 0.49 22.34 DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y N 1.0 0 2.0 0 2.0 0 3.40 2.43 2.00 7.83 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT MANAGER UNIT MANAGER UNIT MANAGER UNIT MANAGER UNIT MANAGER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION VISITING ROOM ACTIVITY AREAS YARD MAIL ROOM RECEIVING & DISCHARGE EDUCATION YARD VISITING MAIL ROOM CLOTHING ROOM YARD PATROL EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OTHER POSTS BUS EXECUTIVE RELIEF 229.48 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 93 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN F.C.I. FORT WORTH AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 9.0 21.0 31.0 51.0 23.0 19.5 9.2 35.6 22.3 7.8 229.5 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R 51 9 68 12 13 2 30 5 162 29 ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: RATE PER 100 P. % 3.9 9.2 13.5 22.2 10.0 8.5 4.0 15.5 9.7 3.4 100.0 32,655 65,044 96,018 157,964 91,593 48,313 22,861 88,192 55,348 19,394 677,382 5.5 9.0 4.1 3.5 1.6 6.3 4.0 1.4 40.6 EVE # R 3 2 6 9 20 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 1 0 1 2 4 NITE # R 1 2 5 2 10 0 0 1 0 2 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS 3.87 MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 100.00 8.00 100.00 94.48 5.52 0.94 94 TOTL # R 61 74 36 59 229 11 13 6 10 41 # R 15 3 4 1 8 1 14 2 19 3 SUMMARY CHART F.C.I. FORT WORTH POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 560 21 29 4 2 41 0 4 11 13 6 10 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 XXXXX ##################### ############################# #### ## ##############I########################## #### ########### ############# ###### ########## ### # # ## ### ## # # DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH 61 YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 173 87 47 39 8 8 0 2079 1039 567 472 94 94 0 248 124 68 56 11 11 0 2970 1485 810 675 135 135 0 ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 95 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 10 11 12 7 1 3 217 1.20 5.05 1.68 13 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER DPTY. COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PLAN & RESEARCH DIR. SECRETARY TYPIST TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 96 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 POSITION ***** N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F QFFICE HRS N N N N Y N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.05 1.00 1.00 11.05 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS, OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 PROGRAMS OFFICE HRS N 1.0 2 1.00 1.00 CONTROL CTR CONTROL CTR CONTROL CTR FRONT DESK DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS N N Y Y 1.0 7 1.0 16 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 5.05 5.05 12.10 NIGHT,ALL EVENING,ALL Y Y 1.0 1.0 SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT BOILER BOILER WAREHOUSE ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAM/INTAKE GYMNASIUM GYMNASIUM PROGRAMS PROGRAMS INTAKE CONTROL POINTS CUSTODY DIR. SUPPORT SUPERV CONTROL CTR FRONT DESK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PSYCHOLOGIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES PROGRAM DIRECTOR RELEASE DIRECTOR EDUCATION DIRECTOR COUNSELORS REC. SUPERV. REC. LEADERS CLERICAL AIDE TYPIST TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL SUPPORT OPERATIONS SUPPORT DIRECTOR MAINT. LT. MAINT. OFFICER PLANT SUPERV. PLANT OPERATORS STOREKEEPER TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNT CLERK TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERIMETER SECURITY PATROL PATROL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PERIMETER PERIMETER 97 0 0 1.68 1.68 3.37 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT SUPERV. WEST WING SUPV A FLAGGING F FLAGGING GALLERIES GALLERIES EAST WING SUPV R-S GALLERIES R-S GALLERIES Y DESK WOMEN'S WING DESK M-N GALLERIES M-N GALLERIES PQWX GALLERIES CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION UNITS WEST WING WEST WING WEST WING WEST WING WEST WING EAST WING EAST WING EAST WING EAST WING WOMEN'S WING WOMEN'S WING WOMEN'S WING SPEC. HOUSING CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5.05 5.05 3.37 3.37 5.05 1.68 5.05 5.05 1.68 3.37 5.05 3.37 1.68 5.05 53.88 DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL N N N Y N N N N Y 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 12 1.0 0 1.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.37 14.74 DAY&EVE,M-F N 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD BOOKING IDENTIFICATION PACKAGES SEARCH/VISIT CUST.SERV.SUPV FARM SUPERV LAUNDRY GROUNDS 'FOOD SERV. CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: INTAKE INTAKE FRONT DESK VISITING ADMINISTRATION FARM LAUNDRY GROUNDS KITCHEN ***** EXTERNAL AND OTHER TRANSPORT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: INTAKE TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 118.14 98 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 7.0 3.0 11.1 11.0 1.0 12.1 3.4 53.9 14.7 1.0 118.1 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: % 5.9 2.5 9.4 9.3 0.8 10.2 2.9 45.6 12.5 0.8 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 17 11 12 8 14 9 15 9 58 36 1 1 0 0 11 7 6 4 18 11 4.10 86.00 0.00 86.00 85.09 0.91 0.99 99 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 4.4 1.9 6.9 6.9 0.6 7.6 2.1 33.7 9.2 0.6 73.8 NITE # R 1 0 7 3 11 1 0 4 2 7 TOTL # R 21 12 54 31 118 13 8 34 20 74 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # R MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 8 5 SUMMARY CHART ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 160 20 36 11 7 74 0 4 13 8 34 20 0 l 0 ################ #################### #################################### ########### ######## xxxxxxx #### ############## ######## ########################+I######### ##################+I# # 9 ########## 7 ####### 4 #### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 71 78 85 50 7 21 0 851 936 1021 596 85 255 0 28 30 33 19 3 8 0 331 364 397 231 33 99 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 100 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT . NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS ######################################################################## CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 20 12 9 5 1 1 213 1.23 5.15 1.72 ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 19 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATION WARDEN PENITENTIARY PENITENTIARY ASSOC WARDEN JAIL JAIL ASSOC WARDEN GENERAL WOMEN'S UNIT OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION A: COMMISSIONER A: SPECIAL ASSISTANT A: SECRETARY A: WARDEN A: SECRETARY P: ASSOC. WARDEN P: SNR. ASST. WARDEN P: SECRETARY J: ASSOC. WARDEN J: SR. ASST. WARDEN J: SR. TYPIST J: TYPIST W: CAPTAIN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 101 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1 0 4 0 2 7 0 2 3 0 0 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 POSITION ***** ADMINISTRATION OFFICE HRS N 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 FOOD SERVICE PENITENTIARY PENITENTIARY PENITENTIARY WAREHOUSE JAIL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F N N * N N N 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 7.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 INTAKE DAY,M-F N 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** 0.00 CONTROL POINTS P: CAPTAIN P: CAPTAIN P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS J: CAPTAIN, J: OFFICERS J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER W: SERGEANT W: OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** TOTL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES P: CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL SUPPORT OPERATIONS P: MANAGER P: SENIOR COOK P: COOKS P: MAINTENANCE MAN P: STOREKEEPER J: MAINTENANCE MAN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT A: TRAINING OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** -LOCATION TOUR SUPERVISOR POST 1 WEST CONTROL CONTROL CENTER RECORDS/FRONT OFFICE TOUR SUPERVISOR G-CONTROL CONTROL CENTER SEARCH SEARCH TOUR SUPERVISORS CENTRAL CONTROL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAYtEVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS * 0.9 10 3.00 * 0.8 0 4.00 Y 1.0 0 3.43 y , 1.0 0 3.43 Y 2.0 0 6.86 * 1.0 13 5.00 Y 3.0 0 15.44 Y 1.0 0 5.15 Y 1.0 0 5.15 Y 1.0 0 3.43 * 1.0 6 5.00 Y 1.0 0 5.15 65.03 PERIMETER SECURITY 0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 102 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL UNIT SUPERVISOR A BLOCK A BLOCK B BLOCK B BLOCK D BLOCK D BLOCK F UNIT F UNIT C BLOCK C BLOCK UNIT FLOATER UNIT SUPERVISOR CENTER EAST WEST EAST & WEST G-BLOCK MEDICAL UNIT EAST BLOCK l&2 WEST BLOCK l&2 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL NIGHT,ALL NIGHT,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y * Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 9 5.00 1.0 0 5.15 1.0 0 3.43 1.0 0 5.15 1.0 0 3.43 1.0 0 5.15 2.0 0 6.86 1.0 0 5.15 1.0 0 3.43 2.0 0 3.43 1.0 0 1.72 1.0 0 1.72 1.0 10 5.00 3.0 0 15.44 3.0 0 10.29 4.0 0 13.72 3.0 0 5.15 1.0 0 3.43 2.0 0 10.29 2.0 0 10.29 2.0 0 10.29 133.52 DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.43 3.43 1.23 3.43 2.45 5.15 3.43 6.86 1.23 3.43 1.00 2.45 3.43 1.23 42.17 OFFICE Y 1.0 0 1.23 1.23 * INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD P: OFFICER P: OFFICER P: OFFICER P: OFFICER P: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER J: OFFICER W: OFFICERS W: OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT UNIT SUPERVISION P: SERGEANT P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICERS P: OFFICER J: SERGEANT J: OFFICERS J: OFFICERS J: OFFICERS J: OFFICERS J: OFFICERS J: OFFICER W: OFFICERS W: OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION IDENTIFICATION KITCHEN COMMISSARY RECREATION CLOTHING/TAILOR BOOKING BOOKING RECREATION COMMISSARY KITCHEN SUPPLY IDENTIFICATION KITCHEN/MEAL RELIEF COMMISSARY EXTERNAL AND OTHER P: OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TRANSPORT HRS 269.94 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 103 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 13.0 1.0 13.0 1.0 0.0 65.0 0.0 133.5 42.2 1.2 269.9 DAY # R STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 4.56 254.00 1.00 255.00 241.95 13.05 0.95 4.8 0.4 4.8 0.4 0.0 24.1 0.0 49.5 15.6 0.5 100.0 2 0 33 24 59 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 21.2 6.7 0.2 42.8 EVE # R 22 3 1 0 28 4 33 5 84 13 ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL RATE PER 100 P. % 0 0 5 4 9 NITE # R 0 0 17 10 27 0 0 3 2 4 TOTL # R 27 4 1 0 134 21 108 17 270 43 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 104 R SUMMARY CHART NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 630 XXXXXX 22 ####################### 13 ############# 9 ########## 4 #### 43 #############################I############## 4 #### 0 # 21 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 17 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 0 0 0 0 4 #### 5 ##### 3 ### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 403 242 181 101 20 20 18 4839 2903 2178 1210 242 242 213 47 28 21 12 2 2 0 560 336 252 140 28 28 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 105 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT NYC : BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: 365 104 261 27 0 6 6 2 20 200 1.31 5.48 1.83 COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: ######################################################################### STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 16 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION SECURITY COURT DIVISION PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENT TOUR COMMAND INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN ASST. DPTY WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN ASST DEPUTY WARDEN ASST DEPUTY WARDENS CAPTAIN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 106 N N N N N N * N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3 6 3 0 4 0 1 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 15.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CAPTAIN CAPTAIN ADM. ASSISTANT CLERK SUPERVISOR OFFICE AIDES OFFICE ASSOCIATE TRANSCRIBER MANAGER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERSONNEL GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE . BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL COMMISSARY OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N 1.0 6 1.0 15 1.0 0 1.0 2 2.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 N N N * N N * N N N N N * * N * N N 1.0 1 1.0 12 1.0 2 0.8 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 0.8 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1 0.5 1 1.6 0 1.0 0 0.9 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 34.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS CAPTAIN CAPTAIN CAPTAIN OPERATORS OFFICE ASSISTANTS ELECTRICIAN STAFF PLUMBER PLUMBER'S HELPER EXTERMINATOR RODENT CONTROL AIDE MANAGER CHIEF COOK COOKS MEAT CUTTER ENGINEERS AIDE LOCKSMITH CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: FOOD SERVICE MAINTENANCE SANITATION ELEVATOR GENERAL OFFICE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE SANITATION SANITATION FOOD SERVICE KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN BOILER WAREHOUSE MAINTENANCE OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F 107 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES CAPTAINS ADM. ASSISTANT LEGAL COORDINATOR DOCCS STAFF DIRECTOR CHAPLAIN CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION VISITS C PGRMS SOCIAL SERVICE LAW LIBRARY SOCIAL SERVICE RECREATION CHAPEL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS 2.0 19 2.00 1.0 0 1.00 2.0 0 2.00 2.0 0 2.00 0.8 0 3.00 2.0 0 2.00 12.00 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT 0.00 CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** CONTROL POINTS CAPTAINS CAPTAIN CAPTAIN OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** HOUSE #l&2 SECURITY CONTROL ROOM MAIN GATE MAIN CORRIDOR CONTROL ROOM SECURITY AREAS VISIT CONTROL ELECTRONIC INSPECTION 2ND FL CONTROL VISIT SEARCH CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS EVE,M-F DAY,ALL EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 13 10.96 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 0 5.48 1.0 0 5.48 1.0 0 1.31 1.0 0 1.83 2.0 0 2.61 2.0 0 2.61 1.0 0 1.31 2.0 0 2.61 36.19 DAY&EVE,ALL NIGHT,ALL Y Y 1.4 1.0 PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OUTSIDE PATROL OUTSIDE PATROL 108 0 0 5.12 1.83 6.94 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN OF TOR CONTROL TOTL ONE NORTH Two, S&W THREE,N,S,W-A THREE, W-B FOUR, N,S,W-A FOUR, W-B FIVE, N,S,W-A FIVE, W-B SIX, S&W SIX, WEST-B 5.48 10.96 16.44 3.65 16.44 3.65 16.44 3.65 5.48 3.65 85.87 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAY,M-F EVE,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F EVE,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F EVE,M-F Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.6 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0 2.61 0 2.61 0 5.48 0 1.83 0 2.61 0 2.61 0 10.96 0 2.61 0 4.70 0 1.57 0 3.92 0 1.31 0 5.48 0 1.31 0 1.31 0 1.31 0 1.31 0 2.61 0 1.31 0 12.79 0 1.57 0 1.31 0 2.61 0 1.31 0 1.31 0 2.61 80.91 OFFICE HRS EVE,M-F EVE,M-F Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT UNIT SUPERVISION OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION CLINIC CHAPEL & ESCORT DESK: RECEIVING ROOM CARDS: REC. ROOM CARDS: REC. ROOM N & S YARD GENERAL OFFICE CASHIERS OFFICE MAIL & PACKAGE ROOMS COUNSEL AREA DW PERSONNEL WARDEN'S OFFICE KITCHEN KITCHEN STOREROOM COMMISSARY MAINTENANCE GANG LAUNDRY SANITATION GANG RECREATION LAW LIBRARY METAL DETECTOR LOCKER 2ND FL WAIT, IN&OUT INMATE REGISTRATION ELEVATOR VISIT SUPERVISION EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TOTAL STAFF COUNT: INST. VEHICLE WRITS/TRANSFERS CAP PGRM ESCORT 1.31 1.31 1.31 3.92 283.83 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 15.0 9.0 34.0 12.0 0.0 36.2 80.9 3.9 283.8 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS T O T A L AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHURIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: % 5.3 3.2 12.0 4.2 0.0 12.8 2.4 30.3 28.5 1.4 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 37 8 10 2 17 3 41 8 105 21 6 1 1 0 17 3 34 7 58 12 4.78 204.00 12.00 216.00 213.83 2.17 0.99 110 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 3.0 1.8 6.9 2.4 0.0 7.3 1.4 17.3 16.3 0.8 57.3 NITE # R 2 0 13 9 24 0 0 3 2 5 TOTL # R 58 12 86 128 284 12 2 17 26 57 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # R MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 SUMMARY CHART NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 490 30 21 12 5 57 5 12 2 17 26 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 ################################################# ############################## ##################### ############ ###### xxxxx ##### ############ ## ################# ########################## # ### ### ### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 481 0 107 107 5773 158 0 1283 1283 0 1890 0 0 0 36 356 200 428 4277 2400 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 111 35 35 12 117 420 420 140 1400 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT MCC: NEW YORK STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 22 11 6 5 1 1 215 1.21 5.10 1.70 1 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION WARDEN COMMUNITY TREATMENT WARDEN ASSOC WARDENS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN ASSOCIATE WARDEN ASSOCIATE WARDEN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SECRETARY SECRETARY STATISTICAL ANALYST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 112 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N 1.0 6 1.0 10 1.0 6 1.0 0 1.0 6 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MANAGER ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE PURCHASING AGENT ACCOUNT CLERKS TRUST FUND CLERKS RELIEF CLERK PERSONNEL OFFICER SPECIALISTS CLERK SPECIALIST MANAGER MAIL CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE PERSONNEL PERSONNEL TRAINING ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 9 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 N N N N * N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 17.00 SUPPORT OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATOR FACILITIES MANAGER MANAGER WAREHOUSE FOREMEN COOKS GENERAL FOREMAN SKILLED TRADES CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: FOOD SERVICES MAINTENANCE SAFETY WAREHOUSE KITCHEN MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE 113 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F POSITION ***** SHIFT FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOREMAN DIRECTOR CHAPLAIN COORDINATOR PROGRAM SPECIALISTS ADMINISTRATIVE ASST RECORDS CLERK CLERK COUNSELOR AIDE COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR RECORDS TECHNICIANS CASE MANAGERS CLERKS R&D OFFICER R&D OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION BRUSH FACTORY EDUCATION CHAPEL CASE MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY TREATMENT COMMUNITY TREATMENT COMMUNITY TREATMENT COMMUNITY TREATMENT COMMUNITY TREATMENT POPULATION MVT RECORDS RECORDS UNITS UNITS RECEIVING & DISCHARGE RECEIVING & DISCHARGE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE DAY,M-F DAY,ALL HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 4 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.0 0 0 1.00 1.70 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 2.0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 16.00 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 25.70 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT MEDICAL OFFICER PSYCHIATRIST ADMINISTRATOR PSYCHOLOGIST PHYSICIAN'S ASST LAB TECHNICIAN LABTECH ASST CLERK CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: MEDICAL MEDICAL HOSPITAL PSYCHOLOGY MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS 114 N N N N * N N N 2.00 POSITION ***** N * Y Y N 1.0 1 1.00 1.4 15 7.00 3.0 0 15.30 1.0 0 3.40 1.0 0 1.00 27.69 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS EVE,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL N Y Y 5.0 8.0 2.0 1 5.00 0 40.79 0 6.80 52.59 DAY,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F WKND,DAYS Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F Y Y N 3.0 2.0 2.0 0 10.20 0 2.43 0 2.00 14.63 LOBBY PATROL PATROL ENTRANCE 5.10 5.10 1.21 1.21 12.63 UNITS UNITS UNITS INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F UNIT SUPERVISION UNIT MANAGERS OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SECURITY SECURITY CONTROL ROOMS SECURITY SECURITY FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT CONTROL POINTS CHIEF CORRECTIONAL SU CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS OFFICERS CLERKS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION RECREATION VISITING ROOM MAIL ROOM CLOTHING ROOM YARD PATROL 1.70 3.40 1.21 1.21 0.49 8.01 EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: TOTAL STAFF COUNT: OTHER POSTS BUS EXECUTIVE RELIEF 198.25 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN MCC: NEW YORK AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 8.0 16.0 17.0 25.7 16.0 27.7 12.6 52.6 8.0 14.6 198.2 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 37 9 35 8 15 4 23 6 110 27 4.44 94.00 0.00 94.00 115.54 21.54 1.23 % 4.0 8.1 8.6 13.0 8.1 14.0 6.4 26.5 4.0 7.4 100.0 RATE PER 100 P. 4.1 6.7 3.0 12.6 1.9 3.5 47.7 EVE # R 1 2 10 11 24' 0 0 2 3 6 $ NITE # R 0 2 8 6 16 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 116 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 0 0 2 2 4 761,745 TOTL # R 41 42 53 63 198 10 10 12 15 48 # R 11 2 1 1 9 3 0 0 0 2 SUMMARY CHART MCC: NEW YORK POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 212 106 58 48 152 1819 910 496 10 2542 1271 693 578 116 116 0 0 10 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 117 76 41 34 7 7 0 413 83 83 0 ######################################################################## CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: 365 104 261 10 11 12 7 1 3 217 1.20 5.05 1.68 #######################################################################~ STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 1 4 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL 3 9 1 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER DPTY. COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PLAN & RESEARCH DIR. SECRETARY TYPIST TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 118 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 POSITION ***** 2 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS N N N N * N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F N N N N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 PROGRAMS OFFICE HRS N 1.0 2 1.00 1.00 CONTROL CTR. CONTROL CTR. CONTROL CTR. LOBBY REAR CTRL CTR DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 8 0 0 0 3.37 5.05 1.68 3.37 3.37 16.84 NIGHT,ALL EVENING,ALL Y Y 2.0 1.0 0 3.37 1.68 5.05 SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT BOILER BOILER WAREHOUSE ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAM/INTAKE GYMNASIUM GYMNASIUM PROGRAMS PROGRAMS INTAKE UNITS CONTROL POINTS CUSTODY SUPERV. CONTROL CTR. CONTROL CTR. LOBBY REAR CONTROL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** 1.0 1.0 1.0 MEDICAL AND TREATMENT PSYCHOLOGIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** N N N PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES PROGRAM DIRECTOR RELEASE DIRECTOR EDUCATION DIRECTOR COUNSELORS REC. SUPERV. REC. LEADERS CLERICAL AIDE TYPIST TYPIST CASE MANAGER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS SUPPORT DIRECTOR MAINT. LT. MAINT. OFFICER PLANT SUPERV. PLANT OPERATORS STOREKEEPER TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNT CLERK TYPIST CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT LOCATION PERIMETER SECURITY PATROL PATROL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: PERIMETER PERIMETER 119 0 POSITION ***** FAC- # SPAN TOR OF CONTROL TOTL UNITS UNITS UNITS UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT C UNIT UNIT C C DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVE,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVE,M-F CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVE,M-F N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 3.00 1.00 5.05 5.05 3.37 2.00 1.00 5.05 5.05 3.37 2.00 1.00 5.05 5.05 6.74 5.05 3.37 2.00 1.00 66.20 DAY&EVE,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS Y Y Y N N Y Y N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.37 3.37 1.68 1.00 1.00 6.74 5.05 2.00 2.00 26.21 DAY&EVE,ALL Y 1.0 0 3.37 3.37 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD SEEK & SEARCH SCHOOL/REC BOOKING IDENTIFICATION MAIL INSPECT VISITING RECEPT/MED WORK DETAILS PROGRAM CO'S CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT UNIT SUPERVISION HOUSING DIRECTOR HOUSING MANAGERS CLERK SUPERV. A OFFICERS A OFFICERS A CORR.COUNS A CORR.COUNS A SUPERV. B OFFICERS B OFFICERS B C0RR.COUNS.B C0RR.COUNS.B SUPERV. C MALE CO'S MALE CO'S FEMALE CO'S FEMALE CO'S C0RR.COUNS.C C0RR.COUNS.C CATEGORYSUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION ALL AREAS SCHOOL/REC INTAKE INTAKE MAIL VISITATION INTAKE ALL AREAS PROGRAM EXTERNAL AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: INTAKE TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 150.67 120 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY POSITIONS AREA ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AND TREATMENT CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 7.0 3.0 10.0 12.0 1.0 16.8 5.1 66.2 26.2 3.4 150.7 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT DAY # R ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 17 9 117.00 0.00 117.00 117.66 0.66 1.01 4.6 2.0 6.6 8.0 0.7 11.2 3.4 43.9 17.4 2.2 100.0 3.6 1.6 5.2 6.3 0.5 8.8 2.6 34.5 13.6 1.8 78.5 EVE # R NITE # R 1 1 0 $ 122,781 $ 191,089 TOTL # R 10 7 34 27 78 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # R MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 1 0 1 9 0 1 0 1 5 121 18 9 11 6 30 16 0 $ 74,740 27,344 91,146 20 13 66 51 151 13 7 18 9 71 37 3.32 STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. RATE PER 100 P. % 7 4 4 12 2 6 SUMMARY CHART ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 190 ################### 20 #################### 37 16 6 78 ##################################### ################ ###### XXXXXXXX 3 10 7 34 ### ########## ####### ################################## 2 7 ########################### 0 1 # 0 5 ##### 12 ############ 9 ######### 4 #### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 98 1177 1294 1412 28 30 33 330 363 824 19 118 353 3 8 0 0 108 118 69 10 29 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 122 396 231 33 99 0 CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR: REGULAR DAYS OFF: TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR: VACATION DAYS: HOLIDAYS: AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS: AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN: AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN: TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE: COVERAGE FACTOR: CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR: SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE: STAFFING PATTERN LISTING POSITION ***** 365 104 261 27 0 6 6 2 20 200 1.31 5.48 1.83 17 LOCATION SHIFT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS OPERATIONS WARDEN WARDEN ASSOC. WARDENS ALL AREAS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN DEPUTY WARDEN ADMINISTRATIVE ASST. SECRETARY SECRETARY TYPING POOL CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: 123 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4 8 4 0 0 3 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 POSITION ***** HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS N N N N N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1 0 3 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 OFFICE HRS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,M-F OFFICE HRS N Y N Y N N N 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7 0 4 1 0 0 0 1.00 7.31 1.00 2.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.92 EVE,M-F OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS N N N N N N * 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 l.l 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.0, 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 12.00 HOUSING UNITS OFFICE HRS N 3.0 0 3.00 3.00 SECURITY TOUR TOUR CONTROL ROOM CONTROL ROOM A CONTROL ROOM B SCHEDULING VISIT PROCESSING BRIDGE GATE OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS EVENING,ALL OFFICE HRS N * Y Y Y Y N Y Y 1.0 1 1.1 29 3.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 4.0 0 1.0 0 1.00 6.00 5.48 5.48 5.48 3.65 1.00 7.31 1.31 36.71 CONTINUOUS Y 1.0 FOOD SERVICE KITCHEN MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE FIRE SAFETY LIBRARY EDUCATION/VOTEC RECREATION RECREATION CHAPLAIN CLASSIFICATION INTAKE SCREENING CONTROL POINTS CHIEF COMMANDER ASST. COMMANDER SUPERVISOR OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE MEDICAL AND TREATMENT SOCIAL WORKERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** PERSONNEL PERSONNEL REPORTS BUSINESS OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE COMMISSARY . PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES AIDE COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR LEADER COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR CASE MANAGER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL TOR OF CONTROL SUPPORT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR COOKS MANAGER STAFF PLUMBER ELECTRICIAN INSPECTOR CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OFFICER STAFF BUSINESS MANAGER CASHIER STAFF CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** LOCATION PERIMETER SECURITY OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: OUTSIDE PATROL 124 0 5.48 5.48 POSITION ***** UNIT CONTROL STATIONS UNITS 4,7,10 UNITS 5,6,8,9,11 UNITS 5,6,8,9,11 CONTINUOUS CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,ALL Y 8.0 Y 3.0 Y 10.0 Y 5.0 0 43.85 0 16.44 0 36.54 0 9.14 105.97 DAY,ALL DAY,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F DAY,M-F DAY,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL EVENING,ALL EVENING,ALL DAY&EVE,ALL DAY,M-F CONTINUOUS DAY&EVE,M-F DAY&EVE,ALL OFFICE HRS CONTINUOUS NIGHT,ALL EVENING,ALL CONTINUOUS DAY,ALL EVENING,ALL Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.0 0 1.83 2.0 0 2.61 1.0 0 3.65 1.0 0 1.00 1.0 2 1.00 1.0 0 1.83 1.0 0 3.65 3.0 0 3.92 1.0 0 1.83 2.0 0 7.31 1.0 8 1.83 2.0 0 3.65 1.0 0 3.65 1.0 18 1.31 3.0 0 16.44 1.0 0 2.61 1.0 0 3.65 1.0 0 1.31 1.0 0 5.48 1.0 0 1.83 1.0 0 1.83 1.0 0 5.48 3.0 0 5.48 6.0 0 10.96 94.13 EVE,M-F Y 1.0 INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICER SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER OFFICER SUPERVISOR OFFICERS OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:. ***** FAC- # SPAN TOTL OF TOR CONTROL UNIT SUPERVISION OFFICERS UNIT OFFICERS UNIT OFFICERS PATROL OFFICERS CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: ***** SHIFT LOCATION STORES/LOADING DOCK LAUNDRY ELEVATOR SECURITY/TOOL CTRL SANITATION SANITATION DETAIL KITCHEN MAIL ROOM/PACKAGES LEGAL LIBRARY RECREATION VISITING VISITING ROOM RECEPTION VISITING RECEIVING RECEPTION PROCESS RECEIVING ESCORT RECEIVING SEARCH RECEIVING MEDICAL CLINIC A CLINIC PATROL CLINIC PATROL THIRD FLOOR PROGRAM CENTERS PROGRAM CENTERS EXTERNAL AND OTHER OFFICER CATEGORY SUBTOTAL: HOSPITAL TRANSFER 0 1.31 1.31 288.51 TOTAL STAFF COUNT: 125 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION AREA POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES MEDICAL AN D T RE A TMEN T CONTROL POINTS PERIMETER SECURITY UNIT SUPERVISION INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD EXTERNAL AND OTHER TOTAL 9.0 6.0 14.9 12.0 3.0 36.7 5.5 106.0 94.1 1.3 288.5 STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT UNIT OFFICERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL AUTHORIZED CO'S: OVERTIME CO FTE: TOTAL FTE CO'S: TOTAL POST REQT.: DIFFERENCE: CONGRUENCE: 5.62 245.00 0.00 245.00 243.60 1.41 0.99 % 3.1 2.1 5.2 4.2 1.0 12.7 32.6 0.5 100.0 DAY # R EVE # R 24 6 9 2 26 7 37 9 96 24 2 1 2 1 21 5 33 8 58 15 RATE PER 100 P. STANDARD COST PER 100 PRIS. 2.3 1.5 3.7 3.0 0.8 9.2 1.4 26.5 23.5 0.3 72.1 46,125 26,250 NITE # R 0 1 11 10 22 0 0 3 3 6 TOTL # R 30 7 15 4 106 26 138 34 289 72 KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS # R MEDICAL: MENTAL HEALTH: INDUSTRY: EDUCATION/VOTEC: CLERICAL: 0 3 0 2 5 0 1 0 1 1 126 SUMMARY CHART MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION NYC: POPULATION LEVEL COVERAGE FACTOR STAFF RATE/ DAY STAFF RATE/ EVE STAFF RATE/ NITE STAFF RATE/ TOTL CONGRUENCE SPAN OF CTRL ADM/SPT STAFF MED/PGRM/CASE UNIT CO'S OTHER CO'S MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY EDUCATION/VOTEC CLERICAL UNIT CO'S/ DAY UNIT CO'S/ EVE UNIT CO'S/ NITE 400 ######################################## 30 ############################## 24 ######################## 15 ############### 6 ###### 72 XXXXXXX 0 6 7 4 26 34 ###### ####### #### ########################## ################################## 1 # 0 1 # l 7 5 3 # ####### ##### ### DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OFFICERS ANNUAL LEAVE HOLIDAYS ILLNESS LEAVE TRAINING DAYS MILITARY LEAVE OTHER LEAVE CO OVERTIME NON-OFFICERS MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR 548 0 122 122 41 406 0 6577 0 1462 1462 487 4872 0 101 0 22 22 7 75 0 1213 0 270 270 90 898 0 NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD 127