November 2018
______
kpmg.com
Improving the efficiency of public safety services An Assessment of
the Marion County
Sheriff’s Office
Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
MCSO office-wide analysis ............................................................................................................... 15
Jail Division ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Criminal Division ................................................................................................................................ 78
Judicial Enforcement Division ........................................................................................................... 90
Communications Division .................................................................................................................. 96
Fleet Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 100
Detailed Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 105
Transition Roadmap ....................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A: Peer agency selection process ................................................................................... 119
Appendix B: Sample interview and workshop questions................................................................ 124
Appendix C: Data received .............................................................................................................. 126
Appendix D: Interview and observation tracker .............................................................................. 133
© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG
International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 800056
The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 1 –
Executive summary
The City of Indianapolis-Marion County (City-County), through the Office of Audit and Performance (OAP),
contracted with KPMG to provide professional services to accomplish a comprehensive assessment of
the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) with a focus on MCSO’s performance and funding. The
assessment was conducted between April and September, 2018, utilizing financial and operational data
from 2005 through 2018 year to date. During the period between September and the date of this report it
has gone through an exhaustive validation process with the city and the MCSO.
Background and context:
Since 2005, the City-County
budget has more than doubled.
This budget growth was driven
in part by an income tax
increase from 1 percent to
1.65 percent in 2007. The
budget continued to climb
from 2007–2010, reaching its
peak in 2010. After declining
from 2010–2013, the City-
County budget has increased
steadily over the past five
years. Concurrently, there has
been steady population growth
in the City-County, including a
five percent increase since the
last census in 2010.
In 2005, the City-County
Council of Indianapolis and
Marion County approved the consolidation of the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and the road patrol
and investigation divisions of MCSO, thereby creating the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(IMPD). Consolidation took effect in 2007. Prior to this reorganization, the Arrestee Processing Center
(APC) was transferred from IPD to MCSO. Law enforcement consolidation was projected to save the
City-County $8.8 million per year. A 2014 review of the financial impact of consolidation mandated by
state law found that these savings did not materialize.1
In recent years, MCSO has reported challenges with declining staffing and insufficient budgets to
achieve its mission. Citing budget constraints, in 2017, MCSO announced it planned to discontinue
arrestee transportation services, arrestee identification services, or inmate/arrestee medical security for
other law enforcement agencies in the City-County area. In its announcement, MCSO noted that these
1 “Law Enforcement Consolidation Review,” KSM Consulting, February 2014
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
Budget
Year
City-County Budget, 2005-2018
City-County Adopted Budget MCSO Adopted Budget
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 2 –
services are not mandated by statute, and that MCSO is unique in providing them, when compared to
other sheriff’s offices in Indiana.
Given the focus on MCSO’s budget and portfolio, the City-County commissioned KPMG to conduct a
review of MCSO’s operations, with a specific focus on arrestee service functions, a financial analysis,
and review of MCSO’s vehicle fleet. The objectives and scope for this review are detailed below.
Project scope
The scope of the assessment was to provide a review of MCSO operations with a specific focus on the
below areas:
1. Evaluate arrestee service functions, including transportation,
identification services, and security services provided while arrestees
receive medical treatment.
Requested level
of depth: High
Key pieces of requested analysis included:
— An assessment of the cost of the arrestee services function
— A full staffing analysis
— A benchmarking scan of leading practices and allocation of resources
— An assessment of potential efficiency opportunities
— An assessment of the use of supplies and contracts associated with arrestee
services
— Recommendations for process improvements
— A description of and roadmap to implementing detailed recommendations.
2. Conduct a financial analysis of the MCSO budget.
Requested level of
depth: Moderate
Focus areas for the financial analysis included:
— The allocation and sufficiency of budget funding for MCSO
— The sufficiency of funding level to fulfill constitutional and statutory functions
— Staffing, overtime, and vehicle fleet models for operations
— The sufficiency of funding level required to fulfill and sustain operations.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 3 –
3. Conduct an evaluation of the MCSO vehicle fleet.
Requested level of
depth: Low
The deliverables requested included:
— An inventory of all vehicles used in the arrestee and inmate transportation process,
including purchase date, funding source, vehicle type, accessories, and all relevant
information
— An assessment of the current condition of all vehicles used in arrestee or inmate
transportation
— An assessment of the guidelines for determining which arrestee services positions
are assigned take-home cars.
Methodology
KPMG focused this assessment on creating actionable insights related to the MCSO Steering
Committee’s key questions for success. KPMG received a large amount of data from MCSO, more than
150 documents and data sets. All data was validated with MCSO stakeholders, and additional data
requests were made where necessary to ensure completeness, consistency, and data quality. Where
data quality was a concern, KPMG used its professional experience to generate assumptions—which are
outlined in the relevant sections of this report and were validated by the City-County—or exclude data
that appeared unreliable.
KPMG conducted independent analysis of raw data received from the City-County, from MCSO, and
from publicly available sources of information. This analysis focused on identifying trends, correlations
and root causes of changes in demand, staffing levels, overtime, and expenditures across MCSO. While
trends were identified to highlight the increase in demand from arrests and criminal warrants, the
identification of all the root causes of this demand were not within the scope of this assessment as
much of this demand is generated through the courts and other arresting agencies. However, further
information on demand drivers would be identified through the implementation of KPMG’s
recommendations. The analysis incorporates historical data and 2018 data whenever possible, many
sections rely most heavily on 2015–2017 data, the three most current years with complete data at the
time the assessment was conducted.
KPMG relied on a robust sampling of qualitative and quantitative research to conduct this assessment,
including:
The team employed a five-pronged approach to gather and analyze this information:
Conducting a benchmarking scan of peer agency practices: The first phase was to compare
funding, demand, and staffing data across comparative agencies, as determined by their size,
population, and geography relative to Marion County.
Compiling organizational and financial information: The second phase involved working with
MCSO divisions to compile data about the office’s operations, performance, staffing, and finances.
A benchmarking
scan of
comparable
Agencies
Interviews with
MCSO
leadership and
line staff
Observations
and site visits
MCSO staffing
and operations
data
Law
enforcement
industry leading
practices
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 4 –
The team concurrently conducted more than 20 hours of observations, tours, and interviews to verify
this data and address any gaps.
Assessing the efficiency and performance of MCSO operations: Based on the data gathered,
KPMG evaluated the performance of MCSO operations office-wide and at the division, section, and
unit level. This analysis focused on raw data collected by KPMG. Analyses previously commissioned
or conducted by MCSO provided context but were not utilized in KPMG’s analysis.
Conducting a review of inventory and fleet: The fourth phase included an inventory of the MCSO
fleet, assessment of fleet lifecycle, and evaluation of the take-home car policy.
Developing detailed recommendations for efficiencies: Finally, KPMG developed a menu of
recommendations that, if implemented, would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of MCSO
operations.
KPMG provided MCSO leadership and the project steering committee with multiple updates with initial
findings. The team then conducted validation meetings and sought feedback from steering committee
members to refine and build upon those findings, which are included in this report.
Commendations
During the initial phase of assessment for the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, a range of commendations
were identified based on interviews, workshops, direct observations by KPMG, and feedback from
MCSO employees.
Office-wide
MCSO recognizes that there is not pay parity within MCSO and is making strides to correct this disparity,
which could improve recruitment and retention in addition to improving morale within MCSO. MCSO
utilizes the services of approximately 70 reserve deputies for operations throughout MCSO. Reserve
deputies are paid $5 per year and allocated a take-home vehicle. The use of reserve deputies reduces
costs and provides resiliency throughout MCSO.
MCSO and the Office of Finance and Management (OFM) have also collaborated to maximize available
funding resources; for example, OFM was able to free up nearly $3 million in the MCSO budget in 2017
to be spent on other priorities as the City made a $2.4 million uncontrollable debt service payment while
health insurance costs decreased by several hundred thousand dollars.
Jail Division
MCSO is making a conscious effort to change the force mix within its jail operations staffing. In doing so,
MCSO is following a national trend within corrections of shifting to a detention deputy-focused staffing
model to provide security within jail facilities. Compared to sworn deputies, detention deputies are
trained to carry out duties specifically within a correctional environment and do not have sworn powers.
Detention deputies do not carry firearms, and as a result, cannot independently escort inmates outside of
a jail facility. However, as firearms are not brought into MCSO jails, this restriction does not impair their
ability to provide security within MCSO jails.
Due to their more limited responsibilities, detention deputies earn less than their sworn deputy
counterparts. MCSO deputies earn a starting salary of $35,123, with some roles eligible for annual pay
increases of up to $45,669. Detention deputies earn $32,000 per year, regardless of experience.
There are currently 212 deputies and 51 detention deputies assigned to the jail. MCSO intends to reverse
this mix in the coming years to increase the share of detention deputies as attrition occurs. Successful
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 5 –
implementation of this reversed ratio would yield approximately $2 million in savings, according to project
team estimates. MCSO also introduced the position of Jail Control Operator, a civilian position, in 2017 to
reduce staffing costs and release capacity within jail operations.
The Jail Commander has a significant focus on data and data-driven decision making. This can be seen
through the recent jail length of stay study conducted to inform demand management decisions. KPMG
encourages the tracking and use of data to drive decisions. Looking ahead, there is room for increased
automation: currently, data is primarily collected through manual processes and occupies a portion of the
time of approximately 20 staff per week.
MCSO cross-utilizes staff throughout the jail division. Staff are flexed on shifts across multiple areas of
operation including housing units, wagon transportation, and medical security. The cross-utilization of
staff creates resiliency and is an effective method to attempt to meet demand.
MCSO currently employs behavioral managers, civilians who work with inmates while they are in
custody to prepare them for successful reentry into the community. By working to reduce recidivism and
improve outcomes for justice-involved individuals, this program can help reduce future demand for costly
MCSO jail services. While the theory of change behind this program is strong, implementing procedures
to track outcomes for participants would allow for strengthened management of the program, an
assessment of its effectiveness, and continuous revision and improvement to maximize results.
Judicial Enforcement Division
The Public Services section has implemented a number of measures to reduce cost and manage
demand. The introduction of facility security specialists, a civilian position for college students, has
allowed for the reduction of building security costs. Demand management techniques have also been
applied through the closure of certain building entrances and locking doors overnight to reduce the
number of staff required to staff entrances.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 6 –
Overall summary of findings
Staffing and funding levels at MCSO have not increased in recent years to match growth in demand.
Increasing demand: Between 2015 and 2017, arrests grew by 7 percent, jail bookings grew by 11
percent, and the MCSO average daily jail population grew from 86 percent of MCSO’s daily jail capacity
to 101 percent of jail capacity. Looking beyond the Jail Division, the number of sexual and violent
offenders (SOVO) monitored by MCSO grew by 15 percent, the number of criminal warrants served
grew by 137 percent, and the number of protective orders received grew by 112 percent.
Flat inflation-adjusted budgets: In nominal terms, MCSO expenditures grew 4 percent from 2015 to
2017. When inflation is adjusted out of the nominal increases, MCSO expenditures grew by 0.6 percent
in real (inflation-adjusted) terms during this period.2
The MCSO adopted budget grew by just 2 percent in nominal terms from 2015 to 2017. In inflation-
adjusted dollars, the adopted budget had declined 2 percent in 2017 compared to its 2005 level. The
revised budget, which includes additional appropriations later in the budget cycle, grew by 1.2% from
2015 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted terms.
The adopted budget for FY 2018 held MCSO funding approximately flat at its 2017 level in nominal
dollars. As this report was completed during the FY 2017 - FY 2018 budget year, actual expenditures for
the full year were not available. At $116 million, MCSO’s adopted budget for FY 2019 is 2% larger in
nominal terms than its FY 2018 adopted budget.
Decreasing staffing levels: Staffing across MCSO fell by 7 percent from 2015–2017. MCSO’s total
employee attrition rate increased during this period from 21 percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017. This
level of attrition is at the high end of national annual attrition rates within the national corrections
industry, which range between 12 percent and 25 percent.3
The rate of attrition appears to be accelerating in particular within the Jail Division. While the Division’s
staffing fell by 11 percent from 2015-2017, staffing declined more acutely in 2018, falling an additional 13
percent from 442 in August 2017 to 386 staff as of August 2018. With this reduction of 56 employees,
Jail Division staffing now stands 22 percent below its 2015 level. In recent years, the attrition rate for
detention deputies, a position that only exists within the Jail Division, has hovered at approximately 43-44
percent. A portion of this attrition may be attributable to detention deputies transferring internally within
the Office to become deputies.
Growing overtime: Overtime expenditures have increased across MCSO as staffing has fallen and
demand has increased. MCSO’s overtime more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, increasing
128 percent from $2.1 million in 2015 to $4.8 million in 2017.
In focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff noted that MCSO’s pay scale is one driver of attrition and
vacancies — and, as a result, overtime. This finding was supported by KPMG’s analysis of publicly
available salary information in Indiana.4 This information examined total annual take-home pay, which
includes both salary and overtime income. For each of the five assessed positions, the mean annual pay
2 Inflation calculations are drawn from StatsIndiana, the statistical data utility for Indiana housed at Indiana University. StatsIndiana’s
inflation tool utilizes data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers. 3 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et al.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
4 The project team utilized publicly available Employee Compensation Report published through the Indiana Gateway for
Government Units. This analysis is detailed on pages 36-44 of this report.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 7 –
offered by Marion County was less than the peer agency average (defined as the average of the mean
take-home pay of the comparison group). Despite high levels of overtime, MCSO deputies made 7
percent less in annual take-home pay than their peers; detention deputies earned 6 percent less;
sergeants earned 22 percent less, and dispatchers earned 17 percent less.
Recommendations:
To maximize effectiveness, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and Human Resources
(HR) policies that drive effective performance and employee assessment. MCSO’s vacancy rate is
influenced by a number of factors, including overall employment rates in Indiana and in the City-County.
However, bringing salaries in line with the Indiana market average is a smart first step with the potential
to help fill vacancies, retain high quality employees, and improve morale across MCSO divisions.
It may take years for the City-County to bring MCSO salaries in line with the market average, should it
choose to do so. Given this reality, this report outlines a menu of additional recommendations to
maximize efficiency and effectiveness across MCSO under the current operating model. The expected
timeframe for implementation varies across these recommendations, some of which could take effect
immediately while others would require additional study or a longer implementation timeline by MCSO or
the City-County. These recommendations are listed in the table below and discussed in-depth in the
Detailed Recommendations section of the report on pages 104-115.
Recommendation
Divisions,
sections, or
units affected
Potential estimated
benefits and cost impact
Full
description
on page(s):
1. Expand data collection practices
to allow for complete tracking of
staff supply and demand
MCSO-wide Expanded data collection will
enable the development of
optimized schedules that
match staffing supply and
shift patterns to most
efficiently meet projected
demand.
107
2. Implement demand-based
scheduling
MCSO-wide An estimated 10 percent
reduction in resource supply
hours while maintaining
service levels.5 MCSO will
likely need to hire given
increased demand; however,
reducing the number of
resource hours needed by 10
percent would yield
approximately $3 million per
year in cost avoidance
through reduced salary
expenditures.
107
3. Adopt policies to govern and
optimize MCSO’s use of overtime
MCSO-wide Efficient use of overtime to
manage spikes in demand,
allowing for a targeted 10
112-113
5 Estimates are drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 8 –
Recommendation
Divisions,
sections, or
units affected
Potential estimated
benefits and cost impact
Full
description
on page(s):
percent reduction in overtime
expenditures.6 Such a
reduction would yield
$480,000 in cost reductions
per year.
4. Implement optimized systems to
guide Prioritization, Tasking and
Coordination, and Routing
MCSO-wide Potential cost efficiencies of
approximately $320,000 per
year.
107-110
5. Transition to risk-based model for
monitoring the City-County’s
sexual and violent offenders
population
SOVO Section Potential cost efficiencies of
$510,000–$650,000 per year.
108
6. Implement practices to allow for
demand management within
Arrestee Transportation Section
Arrestee
Transportation
Section
Potential cost avoidance of
$320,000 per year.
105-107
7. Enact internal pay parity across
MCSO divisions
Jail Division
Criminal Division
Judicial
Enforcement
Division
Increased morale, retention,
and employee performance.7
112
8. Bring MCSO
pay in line
with market
average
9. Redesign pay
and
promotion
pathways to
incentivize
performance
and retention
MCSO-wide Increased morale, retention,
and employee performance.
Reductions in attrition-related
recruiting, equipment, and
training costs of $760,000–
$900,000 per year can defray
the cost of pay raises.
Improved recruiting and
retention of detention
deputies will also be
necessary to achieve the
potential $2 million in cost
reductions associated with
recommendation 10 below.
110-112
6 Estimates are drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative given a typical range of potential
reduction of 10-20% given other client experiences. 7 In nearly every workshop and interview, employees cited MCSO’s pay and promotion pathways as a disincentive to build a career
at the agency. Research and organizational design theory assert that rewards and promotion incentives can affect employee
performance. For more information, see: “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf; or Jay R. Galbraith, “The Star Model,”
http://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 9 –
Recommendation
Divisions,
sections, or
units affected
Potential estimated
benefits and cost impact
Full
description
on page(s):
10 Implement planned force mix
changes to allow for a detention
deputy-based staffing model for
the Jail Division
Jail Division Potential cost reductions of
approximately $2 million per
year.
111
11. Demand management
(jail bed diversion programs)
Jail Division;
City-County
Council or Office
of Financial
Management
support required
Potential cost avoidance of
$3.5 million–$13.8 million per
year; the level of savings
depends on programs
implemented.
114-115
Roadmap to implementation
The figure below outlines a potential three year implementation plan for the recommendations above,
with a further suggested Transition Roadmap provided on page 117 within this document.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 10 –
Key questions
Following commencement of the assessment, KPMG asked the steering committee to determine
measures of success. The committee provided KPMG with four key questions to guide the analysis. The
table below provides high level responses to each of these questions, with additional details contained
throughout the report:
Has MCSO been appropriately funded to complete its designated
functions?
Absent any changes to the current MCSO operating model and requisite
data, KPMG finds that MCSO has not been sufficiently funded to complete
its designated functions. MCSO’s budget has declined in real terms
(dollars adjusted for inflation) even as demand for sheriff office services
has grown. This report recommends changes to the MCSO operating
model that could enable efficiencies and relieve fiscal constraints through
cost avoidance and cost savings.
As of 2017, MCSO’s adopted budget had declined by 2 percent in real
terms from its 2005 level. Adjusted for inflation, MCSO’s 2005 adopted
budget of $92 million would equate to approximately $118 million in 2017.
In contrast, MCSO’s FY 2017 adopted budget was approximately $114
million. Additionally, the budgets adopted by the City-County have
consistently been insufficient to cover MCSO operations. Since 2012, total
MCSO expenditures have exceeded MCSO’s adopted budget nearly every
year, resulting in additional appropriations.
Demand has grown across MCSO in recent years, even as funding has
remained relatively flat. The MCSO adopted budget fell by 2 percent in real
terms from 2015 to 2017, when inflation is adjusted out of nominal
increases. Accounting for additional appropriations, MCSO’s revised
budget grew by just 1.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms during this
period. Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent,
and the jail population increased from an average of 86 percent to 101
percent of total capacity. This increased demand may stem in part from an
uptick in arrests in the City-County, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to
2017, and from the effects of House Enrolled Act 1006 (2015), which
dictates that individuals convicted of certain low-level felonies serve their
sentences at the county, rather than state, level. Looking beyond the Jail
Division, the number of sexual or violent offenders monitored by MCSO
increased by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017; the number of criminal
warrants served increased by 137 percent, and the number of protective
orders received increased by 112 percent.
What is needed to enhance MCSO’s performance going forward?
As listed in the “Recommendations” table above, KPMG identified a
number of operational efficiencies to reduce cost and increase
performance and effectiveness. These recommendations are outlined in
greater depth in the detailed recommendations section of the report on
pages 104-115. Strategic investment by the Mayor and City-County Council
is recommended to enable the implementation of these reforms and their
corresponding return on investment.
Funding
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 11 –
What is the cost of providing arrestee transport?
It is difficult to estimate the true cost of arrestee transport due to gaps in
MCSO’s current data collection processes. MCSO’s annual expenditures
on arrestee transportation have remained relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3
million per year from 2015 to 2017. This figure, however, may not capture
the true cost of arrestee transport because the Jail Division cross-utilizes
staff across sections and units. Wagon drivers are at times temporarily
reassigned to intake or jail operations based on the needs of the jail on a
particular day.
Expenditures on arrestee transportation exceeded the budgeted amount
from 2015 to 2017 by an average of $0.3 million per year, or 17 percent.
Arrestee transportation consumes approximately 2 percent of total MCSO
expenditures. As detailed on pages 105-110, MCSO may be able to reduce
the cost of providing arrestee transportation by investing in optimized
demand management, routing, and tasking and coordination systems.
What is a short-term and long-term strategy to deal with arrestee
transport, relying on funding either through the Sheriff’s Office or
other means?
Data suggest that a significant number of arrestees are brought into MCSO
jail facilities each year for low-level offenses, including charges such as
driving while suspended, possession of marijuana, public intoxication, and
possession of paraphernalia among the most common charges for MCSO
inmates. More than 60 percent of MCSO inmates have a length of stay of
less than five days.
The City-County can reduce demand for arrestee transport through a range
of demand management strategies, focusing in particular on these
individuals with low-level offenses. As described in detail on pages 70,
demand management options include:
Expanding the use of summons or citations in lieu of arrest for low-
level offenses
Implementing a prebooking diversion program
Requiring arresting agencies, rather than MCSO, to transport arrestees
with medical needs to the hospital
Authorizing MCSO to charge a jail access fee to arresting agencies to
cover costs associated with Intake.
Additionally, MCSO has a population of “superutilizers,” individuals who
disproportionately consume criminal justice services and repeatedly cycle
in and out of jail. Based on MCSO data, KPMG identified a cohort of
individuals who are booked into MCSO jails more than 50 times each year.
Repeated incarceration is unlikely to lead to improved outcomes for these
individuals in the long term; rather, the City-County and MCSO may want
to consider a targeted, intensive program for this superutilizer population.
Finally, as detailed on pages 70-71, MCSO and the City-County can
implement process improvements to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of the arrestee transportation section, such as:
Arrestee
transport
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 12 –
Modify intake staffing to allow wagon drivers to drop off arrestees and
immediately return to their transport responsibilities
Implement a tasking and coordination system to collate demand,
assess routes, and assign arrestee pickups to the appropriate wagon
driver, thereby increasing efficiency and allowing for performance
management.
What are the root causes of MCSO’s overtime costs?
Overtime increased 128 percent from 2015 to 2017 across MCSO. This
includes a 142 percent increase in overtime usage in the Jail Division,
where overtime expenditures grew from 64 percent of total MCSO
overtime costs in 2015 at $1.6 million to 73 percent of total overtime costs
in 2017 at $3.5 million. As responsibilities were transferred from the
Criminal Division to the Judicial Enforcement Division, overtime in the
Judicial Enforcement Division increased by 628 percent, from $69,000 in
2015 to $504,000 in 2017. By 2017, the Judicial Enforcement Division had
grown to become the second largest consumer of overtime in MCSO, at
10 percent of total expenditures.
These increases in overtime result from increasing demand office-wide
coupled with reduced staffing, or staffing increases that have not kept
pace with demand. In the Jail Division, bookings grew by 11 percent from
2015 to 2017, and the average daily jail population increased from an
average of 86 percent to 101 percent of capacity. This increase in demand
was accompanied by an 11 percent reduction in staffing. In the Criminal
Division’s Warrants Section, where overtime has increased by 25 percent,
the number of warrants served has increased by 137 percent while staffing
has increased by just 30 percent.
MCSO’s staffing reductions primarily stem from difficulties hiring and
retaining employees to fill MCSO’s allocated positions. At 21– 24 percent,
MCSO’s attrition rate is at the high end of national averages for annual
attrition at corrections agencies, which range between 12 percent and 25
percent.8 For detention deputies, the annual attrition rate is greater than 40
percent. Some of this attrition may reflect the fact that detention deputies
commonly transfer internally within MCSO to move into deputy positions.
In focus groups and interviews, staff across MCSO reported that the
office’s challenges with recruiting and retention stem from a salary scale
that is not in line with the market average. KPMG’s analysis supports this
observation. The table on the following page uses publicly available salary
information, published through the Indiana Gateway for Government Units,
to compare MCSO staff’s take-home pay to that of staff at nine other
comparison counties in Indiana. Take-home pay includes both an
individual’s base salary and overtime pay. Even taking into account high
levels of overtime across MCSO, MCSO staff earn from 3 to 22 percent
less than their peers at nearby agencies. As MCSO is one of the largest,
8 “Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Overtime
costs
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 13 –
and therefore busiest, sheriff’s offices in Indiana, this means that MCSO
staff can gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities by
transferring to neighboring sheriff’s offices.
Position MCSO average
take-home pay
Peer agency
average: take-home
Percent
variance
Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $52,913 -5%
Detention Deputy $39,449 $40,738 -3%
Sergeant $50,631 $61,956 -22%
Court Security $33,742 $37,380 -11%
911 Dispatcher $36,929 $43,105 -17%
The full salary analysis is available on pages 36-44 of this report.
Are there opportunities for efficiencies?
A menu of opportunities for efficiencies has been identified in the Detailed
Recommendations section of this report on pages 104-115. MCSO can
optimize its current staffing by implementing a demand-based staffing
model, with the goal of aligning employee supply with demand for
services. A staffing and scheduling analysis can identify optimal shift
patterns by section and by post to help ensure staff are scheduled when
they are needed, and MCSO is not overstaffed during slow periods. Based
on previous projects, optimized scheduling can allow sheriff’s offices to
achieve an estimated 10 percent reduction in resource supply hours while
maintaining service levels. If implemented, such a reduction would allow
an estimated $3 million per year in cost avoidance through reduced salary
and overtime expenditures.
Additionally, MCSO’s overtime will fall if the organization can hire and
retain employees, thereby reducing the number of funded vacancies. To
achieve this, MCSO, working with the Mayor and City-County Council,
should bring its salaries in line with the market average and redesign its
pay and promotion pathways to allow opportunities for career growth.
Finally, overtime use can be efficient in some instances, for example to
manage brief or irregular periods of high demand. MCSO’s current policies
regarding overtime, however, do not ensure it is used intentionally or
efficiently. Staff in the Jail Division reported they sometimes show up at
the jail unscheduled rather than committing to a particular overtime shift,
knowing they will be utilized if present. MCSO’s staffing and scheduling
optimization analysis should include an assessment of which sections
might benefit from regularly scheduled overtime shifts aligned with peaks
in demand. A targeted 10 percent reduction in overtime expenditures
through overtime optimization would allow for $480,000 in savings per
year.
Overtime
costs
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 14 –
What is the cost of providing security for inmates and arrestees at
the hospital?
MCSO’s annual expenditures on inmate medical security have remained
relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017. This
analysis, however, may underestimate total personnel costs generated by
inmate medical security. At the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain
charges require 24-hour supervision by deputies, known as “sitters.” The
need for sitters can sharply increase demand for deputies at Eskenazi.
When demand for deputies is high, MCSO pulls deputies from other posts,
including arrestee transportation and jail operations. The flexing and cross-
utilization of resources are recommended and allow MCSO to efficiently
utilize its available staffing to meet demand. However, movement of
resources among sections is not recorded, and therefore, an accurate
picture of staffing requirements is difficult to determine. Current staffing
levels do not reflect the need for staff at Eskenazi or, consequently, the
personnel cost for all staff posted there.
Expenditures on inmate medical security exceeded the allocated budget by
an average of $168,000 or 16 percent from 2015 to 2017. Based on current
data, medical security costs constitute approximately 1 percent of MCSO
expenditures.
Are there opportunities for efficiencies?
KPMG has identified several opportunities for efficiencies. MCSO covers
medical security costs for arrestees who are taken directly from the field to
the hospital, even though these individuals have not been booked into an
MCSO jail facility. The Mayor and City-County could consider two options
to reduce this cost burden on the MCSO budget:
First, the City-County could require the arresting agency to retain
responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital and
providing medical security until the arrestee is medically cleared to
enter an MCSO jail. MCSO would be responsible for protective
services only for inmates who have been booked into the jail.
Alternatively, the City-County may determine that as a custody agency,
MCSO is best equipped to provide protective services to arrestees at
the hospital. In this case, the City-County could consider requiring the
arresting agency to reimburse MCSO for the fully loaded cost of
transportation and protective services provided to the arrestee.
In both scenarios, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting
agency, rather than MCSO, to assume responsibility for the arrestees’
medical expenses until they are medically clear to enter an MCSO facility.
Additionally, MCSO can improve measurement and forecasting of demand
for deputies at Eskenazi by tracking the section’s actual staffing, including
deputies shifted there temporarily. This enhanced data collection can
enable optimized scheduling and overtime usage.
Medical
security costs
+
MCSO office-wide analysis
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 16 –
MCSO office-wide analysis
MCSO organizational structure and responsibilities
Overview of MCSO responsibilities
The City of Indianapolis-Marion County is the 16th largest city in the United States. Within the City-
County, MCSO is responsible for the management and operations of all jail facilities, emergency
communications, criminal investigations, the security of Marion County courts and City-County buildings,
the collection of taxes under tax warrants, and sex and violent offender registration and monitoring. The
Sheriff’s road patrol function was consolidated with the former Indianapolis Police Department in 2007,
thereby creating the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD).
MCSO organizational structure (2018)
Headed by Sheriff John R. Layton, MCSO is composed of six divisions: an Administration Division,
Criminal Division, Judicial Enforcement Division, Communications Division, Jail Division, and Reserves
Division. Certain functions — such as internal affairs and public relations — are located within the
Sheriff’s Executive Office.
3network of independent member firms
affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (“KPMG International”),
a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG name and logo are
registered trademarks or trademarks of
KPMG International.
© 2016 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited
liability partnership and the U.S.
member firm of the KPMG
Sheriff John R.
Layton
Pension Services Internal Affairs
Chief Deputy Eva
Talley – Sanders
Colonel Louis
Dezelan
JailJudicial
Enforcement
Criminal ReservesAdministration Communications
Process
Evictions/
Replevins
Warrants
Chaplains
Programs
Human
ResourcesDispatch Building Security
Reserve
Warrants
TrainingTrainingSection
CommanderAdmin Assist911
Jail Ops Security Intake
Quartermaster
Fleet
Community
Liaison
Court SecuritySheriff’s
Response Team
Tax Collection
Real Estate
Foreclosures
Float Squad
FinanceAssist
Commander
Assist
Commander
Assist
Commander
Assist
Commander
Assist
Commander
Warrants Marshals
Gangs/Analyst
FBI ATF Fusion
Records Inmate Services Security
Accreditation Tape Research
Reserve
Transport
SO/VO Special
Deputies
Classification Transport Transport
Planning Digital
Tech Access
Keys
Special Events
Reserve SOR
K-9
Information
TechnologyPublic Information
Marion County
Sheriff’s Office
April 16, 2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 17 –
The table and figures below illustrate MCSO’s staffing, broken down by employee classification and
organizational division, as of August 2018, as detailed in the MCSO 2019 Budget Request. The Jail
Division is the largest division with MCSO and employs nearly half of the office’s employees. The Judicial
Enforcement Division and Communications Division employ 15-20 percent of MCSO’s workforce each,
while the Criminal Division, Administration Division, and Executive Office combined employ the
remaining 19 percent of the workforce.
As of August 2018, approximately half of MCSO employees were deputies. Civilians made up 43 percent
of the MCSO workforce while detention deputies, a position introduced in 2015, constituted the
remaining 6 percent. MCSO is pursuing a transition to a detention deputy-based staffing model in its jails.
Compared to deputies, detention deputies are eligible to carry out a more limited set of duties that are
tailored to providing security in a correctional environment. As a result, detention deputies earn less than
their deputy counterparts. A detention deputy-based staffing model would provide MCSO with a lower
cost option to provide jail security as compared to its historical practice of staffing its jails with deputies.
A discussion the agency’s force mix transition is detailed on pages 29 and 111.
MCSO staffing by employee classification and organizational division
Organizational division Deputies
Detention
deputies
Training
academy Civilians Total
Share of
Staffing
Administration Division 18 0 20 29 67 8%
Criminal Division 65 0 0 13 78 9%
Communications Division 5 0 10 121 136 16%
Jail Division 212 51 0 123 386 46%
Judicial Enforcement
Division 118 0 0 42 160 19%
Executive Office 10 0 0 10 20 2%
Total 428 51 30 338 847 100%
Source: MCSO 2019 Budget Request, August 2018
8%
9%
16%
46%
19%
2%
MCSO staffing by division
Administration Division
Criminal Division
Communications Division
Jail Division
Judicial Enforcement Division
Executive Office
51%
6%
40%
4%
Force mix: deputies, detention
deputies, and civilians
Deputies Detention Deputies
Civilians Training Academy
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 18 –
Expenditures, staffing, overtime, and demand by division or
section, 2015–2017
The table below illustrates trends in adopted budget, actual expenditures, staffing, overtime, and demand
across MCSO. Across the agency, demand is increasing while staffing has declined, and budget
allocations have remained approximately flat in nominal terms.
Division/
Section
Adopted
Budget Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand*
MCSO
+2%
+5%
-5%
+128%
Demand has
increased across
most divisions and
sections in recent
years, as detailed
below.
Jail division
+13%
-23%
-4%
+142%
Jail bookings grew
by 11 percent,
and the jail
population
increased from
86 percent to 101
percent of total
capacity.
Arrestee
transportation
(Jail division)
-4%
+4%t
-25%
+200%
Number of
arrestees
transported by
MCSO increased 9
percent.
Share of arrestees
transported by
MCSO grew from
88 percent in
2015–2016 to 89
percent in 2017–
2018.
Inmate medical
security (Jail
division)
-1%
+11%
+0%
+146%
2015 demand data
unavailable
Number of
arrestees
transported to
Eskenazi Hospital
grew by 16
percent from 2016
to 2017.
c
c c
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 19 –
Division/
Section
Adopted
Budget Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand*
Criminal division
-32%
-46%
-50%
-33%
Some division
responsibilities
were reassigned
to other divisions
in 2016, resulting
in a significant
funding and
staffing decrease.
Sexual and
violent offender
registry (Criminal
division)
+62%
-20%
-25%
-15%
Number of
offenders
monitored
increased
15 percent.
Warrants
(Criminal
division) +182%
+25%
+30%
+24%
Number of
warrants served
increased 137
percent.
Judicial
enforcement
division
+32%
+116%
+88%
+632%
Division
responsibilities
increased in 2016,
resulting in
significant funding
and staffing
increases.
Number of
protective orders
received increased
more than 112
percent.
Number of arrests
conducted
decreased 28
percent.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 20 –
Division/
Section
Adopted
Budget Expenditures Staffing Overtime Demand*
Communications
division
-3%
+0%
-8%
+52%
Calls received
decreased
17 percent.
Text demand is
increasing; The
Division began
allow for text-
based
communication in
2015; 47,000
emergency text
sessions in 2017.
*Unless otherwise specified, changes in demand show difference from 2015 to 2017.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 21 –
MCSO budget trends
MCSO budget growth since 2005:
In nominal terms, the MCSO adopted budget grew by 23 percent from 2005–2017, from $92 million in
2005 to $114 million in 2017. This growth has slowed in recent years, with the adopted budget growing
just 3 percent from 2015 to 2016 and then declining slightly in 2017. The FY 2018 adopted budget held
funding approximately level in nominal terms at its FY 2017 level. At $116 million, MCSO’s adopted
budget for FY 2019 is 2% larger in nominal terms than its FY 2018 adopted budget.
Additionally, this growth in the MCSO adopted budget has not been sufficient to keep up with inflation.9
When inflation is adjusted out of nominal increases, MCSO’s adopted budget has declined by 2 percent
since 2005 in real dollars. When adjusted for inflation, MCSO’s 2017 budget of $114 million is equivalent
to just $91 million in 2005 dollars, below MCSO’s 2005 funding level. From 2015 to 2017, the MCSO
adopted budget fell by 2 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. As detailed in the table on pages 18-20,
demand grew across most MCSO functions during this period.
In recent years, the adopted budget for MCSO approved by the City-County Council and the mayor has
been insufficient to cover MCSO’s operating expenses. Since 2012, total MCSO expenditures have
exceeded the adopted budget each year as additional appropriations have been required. Each year,
MCSO received additional appropriations ranging from $2 million to $9 million per year to cover operating
expenses, modest salary increases for deputies and dispatchers, fleet purchases, and other expenses.
9 Inflation calculations are drawn from StatsIndiana, the statistical data utility for the state, housed at Indiana University.
StatsIndiana’s inflation tool utilizes data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers.
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
$110,000,000
$120,000,000
$130,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
MCSO adopted budget, actual expenditures, and additional appropriations,
2005 – 2017
Actual expenditures
Additional appropriation
Adopted budget
Inflation-adjusted adopted budget (2005 dollars)
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 22 –
MCSO requested budget, adopted budget, and actual expenditures
Year Requested budget Adopted budget Actual expenditures
2015 $115,194,990 $111,809,407 $115,739,480
2016 $117,593,323 $114,814,771 $113,539,113
2017 $123,900,000 $113,788,344 $120,361,467
2018 (actual expenditures through
11/15/2018)
$125,849,057 $113,124,262 $100,583,226
MCSO requested versus adopted budget
Since 2015, the differential between
the budget requested by MCSO and
the budget approved by the City-
County Council has grown. In 2015
and 2016, MCSO received 2-3
percent less funding than it
requested, a gap of approximately
$3–4 million each year. In 2017, this
gap grew to 8 percent, or $10 million,
and in 2018, this differential reached
10 percent, or $12.5 million. The
requested budget for MCSO for fiscal
year 2019 was approximately $121
million. At $116 million, MCSO’s
adopted budget for FY 2019 is 2
percent larger than its FY 2018 adopted budget and 4 percent below the FY 2019 budget request, both in
nominal terms.
$100,000,000
$105,000,000
$110,000,000
$115,000,000
$120,000,000
$125,000,000
$130,000,000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Fundin
g
Year
MCSO budget request versus adopted budget
MCSO Adopted Budget Budget Request
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 23 –
MCSO expenditures versus requested budget
MCSO’s actual
expenditures met its
requested budget in 2015.
In 2016, MCSO’s actual
spending was $4 million, or
3 percent, below its budget
request. In 2017, actual
expenditures were $3
million, or 3 percent, below
the MCSO budget request.
$100,000,000
$105,000,000
$110,000,000
$115,000,000
$120,000,000
$125,000,000
$130,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
MCSO requested budget vs actual expenditures
Actual expenditures (including additional appropriation)
Budget Request
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 24 –
MCSO adopted budget compared to the overall City-County budget:
The proportion of the City-County budget dedicated to MCSO has declined since 2005. In 2005 and 2006,
MCSO received between 17 and 20 percent of the total adopted City-County budget. Following the
separation of responsibilities between IMPD and MCSO in 2007, the MCSO share of City-County budget
fell to approximately 8 percent of total City-County allocated funding. MCSO’s share of the budget grew
slightly, up to 12 percent, from 2011 to 2014 as total City-County funding declined. Since 2015, as City-
County overall funding has increased, MCSO’s share of funding has decreased to 11 percent of the total
City-County budget.
There does not appear to be a correlation between the appropriated
funding level allocated to MCSO and the increasing demand upon the
Sheriff’s Office: that is, allocated budgets have not increased
proportionately with increases in demand. Trends in demand are
summarized in the table on pages 18-20 of this report and detailed by
division, section, or unit in the report chapters below.
Year MCSO % of City-County Adopted
Budget
2005 17%
2006 20%
2007 8%
2008 8%
2009 8%
2010 8%
2011 10%
2012 11%
2013 12%
2014 12%
2015 11%
2016 11%
2017 11%
2018 11%
$-
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
8
Budget
Year
City-County Budget, 2005-2018
MCSO Adopted Budget City-County Adopted Budget
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 25 –
MCSO adopted budget by division
From 2015–2018, the Jail Division consumed in excess of 50 percent of MCSO’s adopted budget, with
an average adopted budget of $64.1 million per year. For the average and year-by-year budget for each
division, please refer to the charts below.
Average adopted budget by division, 2015-2018
Administration Criminal Jail Judicial
Enforcement
Communications Office of the
Sheriff
$16.8 million $6.5 million $64.5 million $8.9 million $9.7 million $9.2 million
The Judicial Enforcement Division,
Communications Division, and Office of
the Sheriff were allocated 8 percent of
the adopted budget while 6 percent of
the adopted budget went to the Criminal
Division. The Administration Division
accounted for 15 percent of the adopted
budget per year on average.
$20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000
Administration
Criminal Division
Jail Operations
Judicial Enforcement
Communications
Office of the Sheriff
Budget
Div
isio
n
MCSO adopted budget by division
2018 2017 2016 2015
15%
6%
55%
8%
8%
8%
Share of adopted budget, by division
Administration
Criminal
Jail
Judicial Enforcement
Communciations
Office of the Sheriff
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 26 –
MCSO budget by funding source: general fund versus public safety income
allocation
From 2015 to 2017, MCSO consistently received 75 percent of its funding from the county general fund,
ranging from $65 to $70 million per year. Funding from the City-County’s Public Safety Income Tax (PSIT)
held steady at 25 percent of funding, approximately $23–25 million per year.
PSIT funding is primarily dedicated to MCSO’s Jail Division and Judicial Enforcement Division. The Jail
Division received from 70–90 percent of PSIT funding each year while the Judicial Enforcement Division
received 10–23 percent. The share of PSIT funding directed to the Judicial Enforcement Division grew by
10 percent in 2017, with PSIT funding to the Jail Division falling by the same amount.
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
MCSO budget by funding source
General fund allocation Public safety tax allocation
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Fu
nd
ing
Division
Public Safety Income Tax Fund
Allocation by division, by year
2015 2016 2017 2018
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Fundin
g
Division
County General Fund allocation by
division, by year
2015 2016 2017 2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 27 –
Public Safety and Criminal Justice agency adopted budgets, 2018
MCSO is the third largest public safety agency in the City-County based on budget size, as of 2018.
IMPD’s adopted budget is 117 percent larger than that of MCSO while the Indianapolis Fire
Department’s budget is 33 percent larger than that of MCSO.
Public Safety Income Tax Fund
allocations by agency
MCSO receives the majority of revenue generated
by the City-County’s public safety income tax, at
63 percent of the total. The Superior Court is the
second largest recipient of PSIA funding at
30 percent. The two agencies together receive
more than 90 percent of PSIA funding as over
2018, with small amounts going to the Marion
County Prosecutor and Community Corrections.
IMPD and IFP receive the bulk of their funding
through special taxing districts.
MCSO staffing trends
MCSO staffing strength has reduced from 966
personnel in 2015 to 897 in 2017, a reduction of
approximately 7 percent. From 2017 to 2018,
MCSO staffing fell by 50 employees to 847 staff, an additional 6 percent. Discussion of attrition within
the Sheriff’s Office is included on pages 34-35 of this report.
The Jail Division is the largest division within MCSO, employing approximately 50 percent of MCSO staff.
The Judicial Enforcement Division and Communications Division employ 15-20 percent of MCSO’s
$- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000
IMPD
Indianapolis Fire Department
MCSO
Superior Court
Marion County Prosecutor
Public Defender
Community Corrections
Forensic Services Agency
Marion County Coroner
Budget
Agency
City-County public safety agency and Criminal Justice adopted budgets,
2018
63%
2%
30%
5%
Public Safety Income Tax Fund
allocations by agency, 2018
Marion County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
Community Corrections
Superior Court
Marion County Prosecutor
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 28 –
workforce each, while the Criminal Division, Administration Division, and Executive Office combined
employ the remaining 19 percent of the workforce.
Source: Annual MCSO Budget Requests, 2010-2018
Vacancies
Utilizing six point-in-time estimates from 2016-2018, the project team conducted an assessment of
vacancies at MCSO – that is, positions that are funded but not filled. This analysis drew on two staffing
samples per year, relying on MCSO
data from February 2016, June
2016, January 2017, August 2017,
February 2018, and August 2018.
Across all MCSO divisions, the
number of vacancies has grown by
168 percent since 2016 – from 67
vacancies in February 2016 to 176
vacancies in August 2018. The
majority of vacancies occur in the
Jail Division. In 2017 and 2018, 42-
48 percent of vacant positions
were deputy positions and 12-15
percent were detention deputy
positions. Across all three years of
available data, more than 55
percent of vacancies were deputy
or detention deputy positions. PSAP Control Operators, a position in the Communications Division, were
consistently the third most common type of vacancy, typically constituting 7-9 percent of vacancies.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Full Tim
e E
mplo
yees
Year
MCSO staffing by division, 2010–2018
Administration Criminal Communications
Jail Judicial Enforcement Office of the Sheriff
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Jan-16 Aug-16 Mar-17 Sep-17 Apr-18 Oct-18
Num
ber of V
acancie
s
Year
Vacancies, MCSO-wide, 2015-2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 29 –
Averaging the two 2018
data points, 29 percent
of vacancies were coded
to Jail Security (51
vacancies), 14 percent
were coded to dispatch
(25 vacancies), 13
percent were in Intake
or APC security (23
vacancies), Courtline and
Inmate Records
accounted for 6 percent
of vacancies each (10
vacancies each), and the
remaining 56 percent of
vacancies were divided
amongst more than 20
additional units.
MCSO salary budget and expenditures
MCSO’s salary expenditures declined by 10 percent between 2015 and 2017, from $33 million to $29.5
million. MCSO’s staffing fell by 5 percent during this same period, from 955 to 911 employees. Even as
its salary expenditures declined from 2015 to
2017, MCSO’s adopted salary budget grew by 6
percent, from $37.5 million to $40 million.
In focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff
noted the difficulty to recruit qualified candidates
to fill the positions allocated to MCSO. The
decrease in salary expenditures and filled
positions, occurring at the same time as an
increase in adopted funding for salaries,
illustrates the increase in unfilled vacancies at
MCSO.
In conjunction with a decline in staffing and
salary expenditures, overtime expenditures
grew from 2015 to 2017. In fact, reductions in
salary expenditures appear to have been largely
matched by equivalent increases in overtime
spending. Salary expenditures reduced by $2.7
million from 2015 to 2016 while overtime
expenditures increased by $2.1 million. Salary
expenditures declined by an additional $625,000 from 2016 to 2017 as overtime expenditures grew by
$570,000.
Combined salary and overtime expenditures remained steady from 2015 to 2017, declining marginally
from $35.0 million in 2015 to $34.4 million in 2017. MCSO’s combined salary and overtime expenditures
did not exceed the approved salary budget each year from 2015 to 2017. In fact, the differential between
MCSO’s approved salary budget, and its combined overtime and salary expenditures grew from 2015 to
2017. In 2015, MCSO’s combined salary and overtime expenditure was $2.4 million below its salary
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
Salary budget compared to salary and
overtime expenditures
Salary Expenditures Overtime Expenditures
Salary Budget
51
25
1112
10
10
56
Number of vacancies, 2018 average
Jail Security Dispatch Intake Security
APC Security Courtline Inmate Records
Other
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 30 –
budget; by 2017, this had grown to $5.4 million. A deeper discussion of MCSO’s overtime expenditures
can be found on pages 30-33 of this report.
It is important to note that overtime is compensated at a higher rate than straight time. As a result, if
MCSO’s salary expenditures are being displaced by an equivalent amount of overtime spending, MCSO’s
staffing level is actually declining: salary expenditures yield more staff time than overtime expenditures
dollar per dollar since overtime pay is 1.5 times the normal rate amount.
Force mix
As of August 2018, approximately half of MCSO employees were deputies. Civilians made up 43 percent
of the MCSO workforce while detention deputies, a position introduced in 2015, constituted the
remaining 6 percent. Excluding civilians — who cannot have inmate contact — approximately 80 percent
of Jail Division staff were deputies while 20 percent were detention deputies. MCSO is in the process of
transitioning to a detention deputy-based staffing model in its jails to reverse this ratio in the coming
years.
Compared to sworn deputies, detention deputies are eligible to carry out a more limited set of duties that
are tailored to providing security in a correctional environment. As a result, detention deputies earn less
than their sworn counterparts. A detention deputy-based staffing model thus would provide MCSO with
a lower cost option to provide jail security as compared to its historical practice of staffing its jails with
sworn deputies.
Successful implementation of this reversed ratio would yield approximately $2 million in cost reductions,
according to project team estimates. It is worth noting that the number of detention deputies declined
from FY 2017 to FY 2018, which reflects MCSO’s challenges with retention in this position.
Source: MCSO Budget Presentations, 2015-2019
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Share of Total P
ersonnel
Year
Force mix: Deputies, detention deputies, and civilians,
2014–2018
% Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 31 –
MCSO overtime trends
Office-wide overtime expenditures
Overtime usage at MCSO more than doubled between 2015 and 2017, increasing by 128 percent from
$2.1 million in 2015 to $4.8 million in 2017. This increase in overtime occurred during a period in which
MCSO’s total staffing fell by approximately 5 percent, or 49 employees, while demand rose across most
divisions.
The current growth in MCSO’s overtime usage originated in 2014. Overtime usage office-wide grew by
338 percent from 2013 to 2017. Overtime expenditures between 2013 and 2015 increased by
approximately $1 million; however, between 2016 and 2017, overtime expenditures doubled, increasing
by $2 million from 2016 to 2017.
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Staffin
g
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Annual overtime expenditure versus MCSO staffing
Total Staffing by Year Overtime by Year
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Staffnig
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
MCSO overtime expenditures versus MCSO staffing, 2009–2017
MCSO Overtime Expenditures Staffing
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 32 –
As shown in the figure below, the rate of growth in MCSO’s overtime budget has exceeded the rate of
growth of MCSO’s budget overall. MCSO’s overtime expenditures grew 128 percent during a period in
which the total adopted budget grew by just 5 percent.
MCSO’s overtime budget compared to overtime expenditures, 2012–2018
From 2012–2015, even as overtime expenditures grew by 98 percent, MCSO’s adopted budget each
year accurately anticipated eventual overtime expenditures, resulting in an actual overtime expenditure in
line with the adopted amount. Beginning in 2016 and 2017 however, MCSO’s actual overtime
expenditures began to exceed the adopted amount. In 2016 and 2017, MCSO’s actual overtime spending
had grown to 200 percent – 300 percent of the amount budgeted.
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Adopted B
udget
Year
MCSO adopted budget versus overtime expenditures
MCSO Adopted Budget Overtime Expenditure
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
Adopted overtime budget compared to overtime expenditures
Overtime
Expenditures
Adopted
Overtime
Budget
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 33 –
As discussed previously, increases in overtime expenditures stem from rising demand across MCSO.
From 2015 to 2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and jail utilization increased from an average of
86 percent to 101 percent. Looking beyond the Jail Division, the number of sexual or violent offenders
monitored by MCSO increased by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017; the number of criminal warrants served
increased by 137 percent, and the number of protective orders received increased by 112 percent.
Overtime by division
The Jail Division is
the primary
consumer of
overtime within
MCSO, and accounts
for more than two-
thirds of overtime
expenditures each
year. This report
examines Jail
Division overtime on
pages 56-57. The
second largest
consumer of
overtime is the
Judicial Enforcement
Division, which
accounts for
approximately
10 percent of
overtime
expenditures each year.
Overtime per employee
As MCSO’s office-wide overtime usage has grown, the overtime burden per employee has increased
significantly. During focus groups and interviews, MCSO staff often referred to current levels of overtime
as unsustainable and contributing to burnout, errors, increased exposure to risk, and attrition. Following is
a discussion and analysis of MCSO overtime use. Research supports the finding that high levels of
correctional overtime can contribute to errors and reduced morale.10
Additionally, as shown in the figures below, the overtime burden is not borne equally by all staff.
Particularly as overtime levels have increased agency-wide, a minority of MCSO staff have taken on a
10
“Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 ytd
Expenditures
Year
Overtime expenditures by division
Administration Criminal Division Jail Operations
Judicial Enforcement MCSD Communications Office of the Sheriff
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 34 –
disproportionate share of overtime hours. As of 2017, the 25th percentile of overtime workers worked 39
hours over the course of the year; the 90th percentile of overtime workers worked 566 hours.
An analysis of overtime usage since 2015 illustrates a significant increase in the volume of overtime
hours worked per employee. In 2015, 775 employees worked overtime over the course of the year,
approximately 81 percent of MCSO’s total workforce. Employees worked an average of 96 hours each.
In 2015, MCSO staff in the 90th percentile of overtime hours worked 237 overtime hours over the
course of the year, an average of 5 hours of overtime per week.
2015 2017
Total deputies with OT hours 775 766
Average Overtime Hours Worked 96 217
Average Overtime Pay per Deputy $2,688 $6,213
90th Percentile 237 566
90th Percentile Overtime Pay $6,563 $16,842
In 2017, 766 employees worked overtime. This amounted to 84 percent of the MCSO workforce, fairly
comparable to the share of MCSO who worked overtime in 2015. Yet due to the increases in MCSO’s
use of overtime, MCSO staff worked an average of 217 overtime hours in 2017, an increase of 126
percent since 2015. As a result, the average employee in 2017 worked almost as many hours as the 90th
percentile of overtime workers in 2015. In 2017, individuals in the 90th percentile and above of overtime
hours worked 566 hours or more over the course of the year, an average of 11 hours per week and 2.5
times that of an average employee.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701
Hours w
orked
Number of deputies
Total annual overtime hours by
deputy, 2015
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701
Hours w
orked
Number of deputies
Total annual overtime hours by
deputy, 2017
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 35 –
MCSO attrition
MCSO’s attrition rate increased from 21 percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017. This level of attrition is at
the high end of national annual attrition rates within corrections, which range between 12 percent and 25
percent.11
The primary reason cited for attrition is resignations, which account for 89 percent–90 percent
of turnover each year; the remaining proportion of departures were due to termination, approximately 10
percent of all departures each year.
In workshops and
interviews, KPMG was
informed that a
significant driver
behind resignations is
the salary offered by
MCSO, which appears
to be below the
market average
offered by nearby
Indiana Sheriff’s
Offices. As MCSO is
one of the largest, and
therefore busiest,
Sheriff’s Offices in
Indiana, employees could gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities at neighboring sheriff’s
offices. KPMG’s analysis of MCSO’s salaries as compared to nearby agencies is outlined below.
MCSO’s attrition rate for
deputies fell from 14
percent in 2015 to 11
percent in 2017.
Meanwhile, the attrition
rate for civilians grew from
25 percent to 39 percent
during the same time
period.
The attrition rate is highest
among detention deputies.
This position was
introduced in 2015 as an
effort to reduce costs within jail operations. Compared to deputies, detention deputies are eligible to
carry out a more limited set of duties that are tailored to providing security in a correctional environment.
As a result, detention deputies earn less than their sworn counterparts. The use of detention deputies
follows a national trend within corrections as there is no requirement to utilize only sworn deputies
within jail facilities.
11
“Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2015 2016 2017
Attritio
n rate
Year
Attrition rate by position type, 2015-2017
Civilian Deputy Detention Deputy
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Attritio
n R
ate
Overtim
e expenditures
Year
MCSO attrition rate and overtime expenditures, 2015–
2017
Attrition Rate Overtime Expenditures
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 36 –
Since the introduction of the detention deputy position, the attrition rate has been approximately 43
percent–44 percent each year. This is significantly higher than standard attrition rates and can impact
costs and operations throughout MCSO, including the office’s efforts to transition to a detention deputy-
based staffing model.
High attrition increases recruitment and training costs, increases overtime costs as other employees are
required to train and supplement staffing during the training period. As KPMG has observed in previous
discussion, there is also an impact on employee morale and organizational culture when the staffing
churn and use of overtime are so high.
This finding is supported by research, as Professor Kevin Minor and colleagues write in an article for
Professional Issues in Criminal Justice:
Correctional agencies with high turnover commonly confront a shortage of high
performing, experienced, and skilled personnel. The result can be suspensions and
delays of activities, breakdowns of continuity and consistency, and increased likelihood
of mistakes (Roseman, 1981). The personnel who are available may end up working
excess overtime, which, in addition to further straining budgets, can heighten job stress
and burnout…In short, high turnover often feeds on itself to intensify problems and
undermine organizational effectiveness on a number of fronts.12
According to information provided in interviews and workshops, MCSO deputies spend 17 weeks in
training at the academy and 10 days in training at the jail, approximately 18 weeks of training total.
Detention deputies spend 4 weeks at the academy and 20 days at the jail, approximately 7 weeks of
training total. In addition to these training costs, MCSO also spends approximately $3,830 to recruit, vet,
and equip a new deputy or detention deputy. Equipment costs include three uniforms and weaponry,
such as Tasers or firearm. Recruiting and vetting costs include the cost of a medical and psychological
exam, background check, and criminal law classes. The table below outlines these costs for deputies and
detention deputies.
Position
Training costs
(salary)
Equipment costs Recruitment costs Total
Sheriff’s
Deputy
$10,200 $2,700 $1,130 $14,030
Detention
Deputy
$4,000 $2,700 $1,130 $7,830
Based on current attrition rates and trainee pay rates, MCSO’s attrition-related costs ranged from
approximately $1.1 to $1.4 million per year from 2015 to 2017. This figure does not include the cost of
reduced productivity, overtime to cover vacancies, and low morale.
Additionally, the project team conducted analysis on the rate of turnover within the Sheriff’s Office using
MCSO attrition data. MCSO deputies on average stay with the department for 7.3 years while detention
deputies stay for 1.3 years on average. As a result, in a 5 year period, MCSO spends approximately
$9,600 on recruiting, training, and equipment costs to keep a deputy position staffed. Due to their high
turnover rate, MCSO spends approximately $30,100 on these costs for a detention deputy position in a
five year period.
12
Kevin I Minor et. al, “Understanding Staff Perceptions of Turnover in Corrections,” Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 4,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 37 –
MCSO salaries
Internal pay parity:
Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division and Judicial Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for
deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for MCSO staff, given the dangers that
can accompany field operations in the Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions.
Currently, all deputies across MCSO receive the same starting salary; however, deputies in the Jail
Division or in the Courtline Section of the Judicial Enforcement Division are eligible for annual pay
increases based on experience, while deputies in other sections and divisions are not. As of 2018, all
deputies—regardless of division—earn a starting salary of $35,123. Based on experience, deputies in the
Jail Division or Courtline Section receive pay increases each year, topping out at $45,669 after seven
years. Deputies outside of the Jail Division or Courtline Section are not eligible for these increases and
earn $35,123 regardless of experience, leaving them with lower salaries than their peers. MCSO has
developed a plan to achieve pay parity across divisions and should dedicate the funding necessary to
implement this plan.
Peer county comparisons:
KPMG compared MCSO salaries with publicly available salary data from two sets of comparison
counties, as shown in the tables and map below: the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County
and the “donut” counties that border Marion County.
Comparison
cohort:
Large
counties
Population (2017)
Marion County, IN 950,082
Lake County, IN 485,640
Allen County, IN 372,877
Hamilton County, IN 323,747
St. Joseph County, IN 270,434
Elkhart County, IN 205,032
Comparison
cohort:
Adjacent
counties
Population (2017)
Marion County, IN 950,082
Hamilton County, IN 323,747
Hendricks County, IN 163,685
Johnson County, IN 153,897
Hancock County, IN 74,985
Morgan County, IN 69,713
Boone County, IN 65,875
Shelby County, IN 44,395
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 38 –
The table below illustrates the cost of living variation between Marion County and the comparison group.
Using data from the Indiana Institute for Working Families,13
the table lists an estimated self-sufficiency
wage for a household of two adults and two children in each county. The self-sufficiency wage in Marion
County is $50,849. The other comparison counties have annual self-sufficiency wages ranging from
$48,701 to $54,619, with the exception of Hamilton County which appears to be an outlier at $60,630.
Excluding Hamilton County, the comparison group has an average self-sufficiency wage of $51,297,
approximately $400 above the self-sufficiency wage for Marion County.
Cost of
living
comparison:
County Self-sufficiency wage for a household of two adults,
two children
Marion County, IN $50,849
Hamilton County, IN $60,639
Lake County, IN $54,619
Hendricks County, IN $53,105
Johnson County, IN $53,056
Hancock County, IN $52,088
Elkhart County, IN $51,187
St. Joseph County, IN $50,848
Boone County, IN $50,672
Morgan County, IN $49,898
Allen County, IN $48,800
Shelby County, IN $48,701
Drawing on publicly available salary data for the comparison groups and the City-County, KPMG
compared salaries for the following five Sheriff’s Office positions:14
Sheriff’s Deputy
Detention Deputy
Sergeant
Court Security
911 Dispatcher
13
“Indiana Self-Sufficiency Standard Calculator,” Indiana Institute for Working Families,
http://www.indianaselfsufficiencystandard.org/calculator
14 Counties in the comparison group may be missing from individuals graphs if the county does not staff that particular position or if
salary information was not publicly available.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 39 –
Starting salaries, by position
KPMG began by identifying the entry-level salaries for sheriff’s deputies and detention deputies in each
county, using publicly available position descriptions. As shown in the figures below, the MCSO starting
salary lagged behind the starting salary average across the peer group agencies.
Position MCSO starting salary
Peer agency average:
Starting salary
Sheriff’s Deputy $35,123 $46,437
Detention Deputy $32,000 $35,640
$51,779 $50,417 $49,500 $48,995 $48,900 $48,400 $48,135
$46,720
$37,283 $35,123 $34,236
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Startin
g S
ala
ry
County
Deputy starting salary, by county
$40,170 $39,894 $37,939 $37,794 $37,718
$36,140 $36,000
$33,371 $32,000
$30,799
$26,580
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Startin
g S
ala
ry
County
Detention deputy starting salary, by county
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 40 –
Annual take-home pay, by position
To build upon this analysis, KPMG utilized the publicly available Employee Compensation Report
published through the Indiana Gateway for Government Units. These figures allowed KPMG to calculate
the mean total take-home pay by position, which includes salary and overtime pay from 2017. KPMG has
removed notable outliers from the analysis.
For each of the five assessed positions, the mean salary paid by Marion County was less than the peer
agency average (defined as the average of the mean salaries of the full comparison cohort). Salaries for
detention deputies were closest to the market average. Salaries for sergeants and 911 dispatchers were
farthest from the average, $10,000 and $6,000 less, respectively.
Position MCSO average: Take-home
pay
Peer agency average:
Take-home pay
Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $52,913
Detention Deputy $39,449 $40,738
Sergeant $50,631 $61,956
Court Security $33,742 $37,380
911 Dispatcher $36,929 $43,105
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 41 –
Sheriff’s deputy take-home pay
The mean MCSO deputy take-home pay, which includes both salary and overtime pay, is in line with that
of deputies in nearby Morgan and Hancock counties, who earned annual averages of $48,200 and
$50,500, respectively. However, MCSO’s deputies earn significantly less than deputies employed by
other large counties in Indiana. In particular, the mean take-home pay of a deputy in adjacent Hamilton
County, which consistently ranked near the top in employee compensation, is more than $10,000 above
the mean pay earned by an MCSO deputy. Deputies in Lake County earn approximately $9,000 more on
average than deputies in Marion County.
$62,290
$53,439 $52,554 $50,631 $50,503
$48,295 $46,698 $46,731
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Hamilton
County
Shelby
County
Johnson
County
Marion
County
Hancock
County
Morgon
County
Hendricks
County
Boone
County
Mean Take-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, deputy – nearby counties
$62,290 $59,261
$55,315
$51,780 $50,631
$48,096
$0.00
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
$30,000.00
$40,000.00
$50,000.00
$60,000.00
$70,000.00
Hamilton
County
Lake County Allen County EIkhart County Marion County St. Joseph
County
Mean Take-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, deputy – large counties
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 42 –
Detention deputy take-home pay
Detention deputies in Marion County fell in the median compensation range when compared to nearby
counties. However, detention deputies in all five large Indiana counties earned more than their peers in
Marion County, from an average annual take-home pay of $37,649 in Elkhart County up to an average of
$48,638 in Allen County.
Sergeant take-home pay
Salary data for sergeants was not available for the nearby county cohort. Data from large county cohort
suggests that sergeants in Marion County earn significantly less than their peers in St. Joseph, Allen,
Lake, and Elkhart counties.
$44,203 $43,937
$39,449 $38,639
$37,431 $34,599
$30,056
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Hancock
County
Hamilton
County
Marion
County
Morgan
County
Shelby
County
Johnson
County
Boone
County
Mean Take
-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, detention deputy – nearby counties
$69,483 $67,946 $65,041
$61,237
$50,708
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Elkhart County Lake County Allen County St. Joseph
County
Marion County
Mean Take-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean salary, sergeant – large counties
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 43 –
Sergeants in Marion County earned on average $16,800, or approximately 25 percent, less than their
peers in the large county cohort. This disparity, however, was magnified at the low end of the pay scale.
Sergeants in the 25th
percentile of the pay scale in Marion County earned $19,300, or approximately 32
percent, less than their peers in the 25th
percentile in the comparison group. Sergeants in the 75th
percentile of pay in Marion County earned take-home pay closer to that of their peers, but still lagged
behind by approximately $12,000 or 17 percent.
Take-home pay quartiles: large
counties
Marion County Large county average Difference
25th Percentile: $ 41,730 $ 61,042 $ 19,312
50th Percentile: $ 48,840 $ 65,679 $ 16,838
75th Percentile: $ 57,401 $ 69,427 $ 12,026
Additionally, the mean take-home pay for a sergeant in Marion County is similar to the mean take-home
pay for a deputy in Marion County, once overtime is taken into account—a statistic that was echoed in
KPMG’s interviews with MCSO staff. MCSO employees reported that this pay scale created a
disincentive for deputies to progress in their career within MCSO. Employees noted that there is a
reluctance to pursue promotions that require additional responsibilities for a negligible pay increase, and
employees could not see the benefit of a long-term career within MCSO due to limited opportunities for
financial progression. Rather, employees reported that MCSO provided a short-term opportunity to gain
experience and build a résumé that would allow them to progress their careers within other sheriff
offices that offer better financial benefits and career progression.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 44 –
Court security take-home pay
Average annual take-home pay for court security officers ranged from $28,000 to $40,000 in both the
large county and nearby county cohorts. Marion County court security officers averaged annual
take-home pay of $33,741.
$40,690
$38,374
$33,742 $32,481
$28,572
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Allen County Hamilton County Marion County Lake County St. Joseph County
Mean Take-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, court security – large counties
$46,649
$42,162
$40,459 $39,286
$38,517 $38,374
$33,742 $32,805
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Boone
County
Hendricks
County
Shelby
County
Hancock
County
Morgan
County
Hamilton
County
Marion
County
Johnson
County
Mean Take-H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, court security – nearby counties
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 45 –
911 Dispatcher take-home pay
Dispatchers in Marion County earned significantly less than dispatchers in the nearby county and large
county cohorts. While dispatchers received a salary increase in 2017, even after this increase, KPMG’s
analysis found dispatchers can gain average pay raises of $2,500 to $10,000 by leaving Marion County for
a similar position in an adjacent county and $10,000 to $14,000 more by relocating for a similar position in
Lake County or Hamilton County, which offer average annual pay of $50,195 and $46,847, respectively.
Take-home pay quartiles: large
counties
Marion County Large county average Difference
25th Percentile: $ 33,118 $ 41,144 $ 8,026
50th Percentile: $ 36,411 $ 45,765 $ 9,354
75th Percentile: $ 39,674 $ 49,721 $ 10,047
Conclusion
In focus groups and interviews, staff across MCSO reported that the office’s challenges with recruiting
and retention stem from a salary scale that is not in line with the market average. KPMG’s analysis
supports this observation. As MCSO is one of the largest, and therefore busiest, sheriff’s offices in
Indiana, this means that MCSO staff can gain a salary increase and a reduction in responsibilities by
transferring to neighboring sheriff’s offices.
To maximize effectiveness, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and HR policies that
drive effective performance and employee assessment. Bringing salaries in line with the market average
in the Indiana market is a smart first step with the potential to help fill vacancies, retain high quality
employees, and improve morale across MCSO divisions. These salary modifications may require the
support of the County-Council and Mayor.
$46,848 $46,074
$42,140
$39,487
$36,929
Hamilton County Hancock County Johnson County Margon County Marion County
Mean Take H
om
e P
ay
County
Mean take-home pay, dispatcher – nearby counties
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 46 –
MCSO peer group analysis, division-wide operations
Benchmarking peer group based on services performed
KPMG identified a potential national peer group of 13 Sheriff’s Offices based on similar county size,
location, and household income. The team then researched the mandates of each office: the agencies in
the comparison county/city-county cohort provide a range of services based on the mandates and
conventions of their jurisdiction. The table below illustrates the responsibilities of each office as
compared to those of MCSO. This comparison was used throughout the analysis to guide and inform the
appropriate benchmark criteria (i.e., funding, staffing, and services) between MCSO and the peer agency
cohort.
Services performed, MCSO compared to peer group agencies
Agency Corrections Patrol Warrants
Sex offender
registry
Court
security
Marion County, IN, Sheriff’s Office
Davidson County, TN, Sheriff's Office
Denver County, CO, Sheriff Office
Duval County, FL, Sheriff's Office
East Baton Rouge, LA, Sheriff’s
Office
Fayette County, KY, Sheriff’s Office
Franklin County, OH, Sheriff’s Office
Hamilton County, OH, Sheriff’s Office
Jefferson County, KY, Sheriff’s Office
Lake County, IN, Sheriff's Office
Philadelphia County, PA, Sheriff’s
Office
Richmond County, GA, Sheriff's
Office
Suffolk County, MA, Sheriff’s Office
Virginia Beach, VA, Sheriff’s Office
Summary 11 of 13 7 of 13 13 of 13 7 of 13 10 of 13
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 47 –
Sheriff office funding per resident
To allow for a comparison of sheriff’s office funding across counties with differing populations, KPMG
calculated the sheriff office funding per resident in each county, as shown in the figure below.
Hamilton County, Ohio and Jacksonville Florida Sheriff’s offices top the list; it is unsurprising that these
offices have high funding per resident given that both offices provide both patrol and corrections
services. Philadelphia’s Sheriff’s Office does not operate either patrol or jail divisions, and as a result,
ranks lowest in funding per resident. Of note, Franklin County, Ohio operates both jail and patrol divisions
at a funding per resident lower than that of MCSO.
Of the counties that provide jail services and do not provide patrol services, the Suffolk County, Davidson
County, and Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Offices are allocated funding between $100 and $135 per resident;
and the Denver County Sheriff tops the list of nonpatrol agencies with $198 in per resident. The average
of funding per resident of the comparison agencies that provide jail but not patrol services was $141.
MCSO funding is in line with this average at $140 per resident.
$436
$233
$198
$140 $136 $129 $112 $102
$72
$17
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Fundin
g per R
esid
ent
County
Sheriff office funding per resident
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 48 –
Sheriff office funding as a share of the total county budget
MCSO’s share of the City-County budget is slightly above the share received by two comparison offices,
the Denver County Sheriff’s Office and Franklin County Sheriff’s Office. It is worth noting that the
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office has a patrol function, so it is providing a wider range of services with a
lower share of the total county budget. The Denver County Sheriff offers most of the services provided
by MCSO, with the exception of monitoring registered SOVO offenders, at a lower share of the county
budget than MCSO.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Denver County Sheriff Franklin County Sheriff Marion County Sheriff
Share of C
ounty B
udget
Sheriff's Office
Sheriff office funding as a share of the county budget
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 49 –
Sheriff office budget per staff
Compared to the peer offices for which budget and staffing numbers were publicly available, MCSO had
the highest budget per staff member. This is notable given that MCSO salaries are below those paid by
most peer offices.
In some cases, this differential may stem from the fact that MCSO is operating with fewer staff than the
comparison agency, as illustrated in the figure below. However, it is worth noting that MCSO’s budget
per staff is higher than that of comparatively sized agencies such as Suffolk County, MA and Hamilton
County, OH. This may result from utilizing overtime to fill vacancies or a greater proportion of high cost
supervisory staff as compared to peer agency.
$148,272
$131,952 $127,997
$122,843 $120,248
$104,391
$89,478
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Marion
County
Sheriff
Office
Jacksonville
Sheriff's
Office
Denver
Sheriff
Department
Suffolk
County
Sheriff's
Department
Franklin
County
Sheriff's
Office
Virginia
Beach
Sheriff's
Office
Hamilton
County
Sheriff's
Office
Budget per S
taff
Sheriff's office
Sheriff office budget per staff
3096
12011090
897 883 842
439
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jacksonville
Sheriff's
Office
Franklin
County
Sheriff’s
Office
Denver
Sheriff
Department
Marion
County
Sheriff
Office
Suffolk
County
Sheriff’s
Department
Hamilton
County
Sheriff’s
Office
Virginia
Beach
Sheriff’s
Office
Num
ber of S
taff
Sheriff's Office
Peer agencies by number of staff
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 50 –
Residents per sheriff employee
Across their peer group, the City-County ranked second to the top in residents per sheriff’s office
employees, at approximately 1,000 residents per employee. It is important to note that the Hamilton
County and Jacksonville Sheriff’s Offices operate both corrections and patrol divisions. As a result, they
employ more employees per resident than MCSO and the sheriff’s offices in Franklin County, Virginia
Beach, Suffolk County, and Denver.
Conclusion
As compared to the peer group, MCSO has a small number of employees for the size of its population:
the office was near the top of the group in the number of residents per sheriff office employee.
However, MCSO spends more per employee than the other agencies in the peer group, a fact that may
stem from higher levels of overtime or higher levels of high cost supervisory employees. With high
spending per employee but a low number of employees per resident, MCSO ranked near the average in
sheriff’s office spending per resident, when compared to other agencies that provide jail but not patrol
services.
11001070 1050
900
700
500
400
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Franklin
County
Sheriff's
Office
Marion
County
Sheriff
Office
Virginia
Beach
Sheriff's
Office
Suffolk
County
Sheriff's
Department
Denver
Sheriff
Department
Hamilton
County
Sheriff's
Office
Jacksonville
Sheriff's
Office
Resid
ents per E
mplo
yee
Sheriff's Office
Residents per sheriff employee
Jail Division
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 52 –
Jail Division
The Marion County Sheriff operates three correctional facilities—Jail I, Jail II, and Hope Hall—with a total
bed capacity of approximately 2,500 inmates. The Jail Division also operates an intake facility in the
basement of the City-County Building. The Jail Division receives approximately half of MCSO’s funding
each year. The Division’s key responsibilities include jail operations and security, arrestee transport and
intake processing, and arrestee and inmate medical security. Within the Jail Division, KPMG has
conducted additional reviews focused on arrestee transportation and inmate medical security, as detailed
on pages 60-72 and 72-76 respectively.
Overview
From 2015 to 2017, MCSO’s annual expenditures on jail operations fell by approximately $11 million
or 17 percent. However expenditures are at times “rolled over” to the following year; as a result, an
expenditure coded as 2017 in the General Ledger may actually stem from a 2016 expense. With
adjustments to re-categorize “rollover” expenses, the decline in Jail Division expenditures shrinks:
adjusted Jail Division expenditures have fallen by 11 percent, or approximately $6.5 million from
2015 to 2017.
The Jail Division accounts for a rising share—and a majority—of MCSO’s overtime expenditures. The
Jail Division was responsible for 68 percent of MCSO total overtime costs in 2015; 80 percent in
2016, and 74 percent in 2018. Annual expenditures on Jail Division overtime increased by more than
100 percent from $1.5 million in 2015 to $3.6 million in 2017.
MCSO’s average daily expenditures per inmate, at $66, ranked third lowest out of the eight agencies
in the national peer agency comparison for which data was publicly available; MCSO’s ratio of
inmates to staff, at 5.7 inmates per sheriff’s office employee, was the highest.
Rising levels of overtime appear to result from concurrent increases in demand and reductions in
staffing. From 2015–2017, jail bookings grew by 11 percent, and the average daily jail population
increased from an average of 86 percent of total daily jail capacity in 2015 to 101 percent of total
capacity in 2017. During this same period, total staffing in the Jail Division decreased by 11 percent,
from 496 staff in 2015 to 442 in 2017.
Jail Division staffing has declined sharply in fiscal year 2018 to date, falling 13 percent from 442 to
386 staff, a reduction of 56 employees. With 386 staff as of August 2018, Jail Division staffing
stands 17 percent below its 2015 level.
KPMG compared MCSO’s jail division overtime to publicly available overtime information for Allen
County and St. Joseph County, two large Indiana counties with sizes most comparable to the City-
County. MCSO’s overtime expenditures per jail bed were approximately $1,350, twice those of both
St. Joseph County and Allen County.
Increased demand for jail bookings and jail beds likely stems both from an uptick in arrests and
bookings in the City-County as well as the effects of statewide House Enrolled Act 1006. The
number of arrests in the City-County grew by 9 percent from 33,000 to 35,000 from 2015–2017,
while the number of bookings grew by 11 percent from 47,000 to 52,000. Passed in 2015, House
Enrolled Act 1006 dictated that individuals convicted of certain low-level felonies would serve their
sentences at the county jail level, rather than in state prisons. The number of HB 1006 inmates in
MCSO facilities has grown over time. In 2016, MCSO housed an average of 140 HB 1006 inmates
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 53 –
per day; in 2017, this number grew to an average of 250 per day, and as of June 2018, MCSO was
housing an average of 334 HB 1006 inmates per day.
The jail is moving to a Detention Deputy model. Deputies, a higher cost position, accounted for 81
percent of Jail Division staff in 2014; this share has fallen to 55 percent in 2018 as MCSO has shifted
duties to lower-cost detention deputies and civilian staff.
Reductions in staffing reflect high levels of attrition across MCSO. In particular, attrition rates for
detention deputies stand at approximately 43–44 percent per year, nearly twice MCSO’s average
attrition rate across positions. A portion of this attrition may be attributable to detention deputies
transferring internally within the Office to become deputies.
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Share of
MCSO budget Staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $62.1 million $65.6 million 55% 496 $1.5 million
2016 $61.0 million $50.4 million 44% 449 $3.4 million
2017 $70.5 million $54.3 million 46% 442 $3.6 million
2018 (through
June)
$60.3 million $25.9 million 40% 386 $1.6 million
*Staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
KPMG identified a number of potential opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness within
the Jail Division, focusing in particular on the organization’s arrestee transportation and inmate
medical security functions, as outlined on pages 70-72 and 75-76 respectively.
Budget trends, Jail Division
MCSO’s annual expenditures on jail operations have fallen by approximately $11 million, or 17 percent,
since 2015. MCSO spent approximately $50-$55 million per year on jail operations in 2016 and 2017 and
appears on track to spend a similar amount in 2018 based on year to date expenditures. The Jail Division
remains the largest component of the MCSO budget; however, related expenditures have fallen from
55 percent of the total budget in 2015 to 40 percent in 2018.
Expenditures are at times “rolled over” to the following year; as a result, an expenditures coded as 2017
in the General Ledger may actually stem from a 2016 expense. KPMG compared annual Jail Division
expenditures as recorded in the General Ledger to amended expenditures intended to correctly
categorize these “rollover” expenses. This analysis suggests that MCSO’s 2015 expenditures were
inflated by a $5.5 million “rollover” payment from 2014. “Rollover” expenditures in 2016-2018 ranged
from $300,000 to $2.4 million.
Year
Expenditures from
General Ledger
“Rollover” Expenditures from
the Previous Year
Adjusted
Expenditures
2015 $65.6 million $5.6 million $62.4 million
2016 $50.4 million $2.4 million $48.3 million
2017 $54.3 million $0.3 million $55.8 million
2018 (through June) $25.9 million $1.8 million $25.9 million
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 54 –
With adjustments to re-categorize these “rollover” expenses, the magnitude of the decline in Jail
Division expenditures becomes less—that is, expenditures have fallen by 11%, or approximately $6.5
million from 2015 to 2017.
Peer Group Comparison; average daily budget per inmate: To allow for comparisons across peer
agencies, KPMG calculated the average daily cost per inmate by Sheriff’s Office. To inform this
calculation the office’s total correction’s budget was divided by the average daily population and
converted into a daily cost. Compared to national peer agencies for which this information was available,
MCSO ranked second lowest in average daily budget per inmate, at $66 per day.
Staffing, Jail
Division
Total staffing in the Jail
Division increased
temporarily in 2015 with
the creation of the
detention deputy
position. Division staffing
fell by 11 percent from
2015 to 2017, from 496
to 442 deputies.
This decline in staffing
increased in 2018. The
Jail Division staffing
declined from 442 to 386
throughout 2018, a
reduction of 56
employees or 13 percent.
With 386 staff as of
August 2018, Jail
Division staffing stands 17 percent below its 2015 level.
$123
$114
$88
$82
$71
$66
$62
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Denver Sheriff Department
Lake County Sheriff's Department
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
Jefferson County Department of Corrections
Marion County Sheriff Office
Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office
Daily budget per inmate
Sheriff's O
ffic
e
Daily budget per inmate
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of
sta
ff
Overtim
e expenditures
Year
Jail Division staffing against overtime
Staffing Overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 55 –
MCSO is shifting to a lower-cost detention deputy model for staffing its Jail Division, as is in line with
leading practice. The jail’s force mix (split between deputies, detention deputies, and civilian staff) has
changed significantly since 2015. Deputies, a higher cost position, accounted for 81 percent of Jail
Division staff in 2014; this share has fallen to 55 percent in 2018. The detention deputy position was
introduced in 2015, and detention deputies constitute 13 percent of the Jail Division workforce as of
2018. Meanwhile, civilian positions have grown from 19 percent to 32 percent of the Jail Division
workforce. As of 2018, excluding civilians—who cannot have inmate contact—the Jail Division is 80
percent deputies and 20 percent detention deputies. MCSO is working to reversing this ratio in the
coming years.
Peer group comparison: ratio of inmates to jail staff: Based on KPMG’s analysis of average daily
population and jail staffing, MCSO had the highest ratio of inmates to jail staff, based on the Division’s
2017 staffing level. This reflects both the size of MCSO’s jail population, which is the largest of the
counties listed below, as well as MCSO’s difficulties recruiting qualified staff to fill vacancies. This
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Share of Total E
mplo
yees
Year
Force mix: Jail Division, 2015-2018
% Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 56 –
analysis does not take into account the security classification of the respective jail populations, which
may contribute to differing levels of supervision.
6
4 4 33
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Marion County
Sheriff Office,
IN
Jefferson
County
Department of
Corrections, TN
Lake County
Sheriff's
Department, IN
Hamilton
County Sheriff’s
Office, OH
Franklin County
Sheriff’s Office,
OH
Jacksonville
Sheriff's Office,
FL
Num
ber of Inm
ate per 1 S
taff
Mem
ber
Sheriff's Office
Inmates: Staff ratio
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 57 –
Overtime, Jail Division
The Jail Division’s overtime expenditures doubled from 2015 to 2016 to approximately $3.4 million even
as the division’s staffing levels increased by 6 percent. Overtime expenditures within the Jail Division
have remained at this elevated level since and appear on track to surpass $3 million in 2018 based on
year to date expenditures.
The increase in overtime expenditures from 2015 to 2016 occurred at the same time as an increase in
demand, as shown in the graphic below. From 2015 to 2016, bookings grew by 12 percent and MCSO’s
average daily jail population increased from 86 percent of capacity to 97 percent of capacity. The figure
below shows the increase in overtime expenditures during this period as well as the increasing average
inmate count by month. Inmate counts and overtime expenditures are shown on a monthly basis from
January 2015 to December 2017. It is worth noting that variability in overtime expenditures has increased
over time, suggesting that MCSO is no longer able to plan, control, or optimize its overtime usage.
Both demand and overtime expenditures have remained constant at their elevated levels between 2016
and 2017. Bookings declined just 1 percent from 2016 to 2017; the jail population increased from
97 percent to 101 percent of capacity, and overtime expenditures grew by 6 percent. This increase in
overtime may have resulted both from the increase in jail capacity as well as the 9 percent decline in
staffing that occurred from 2016–2017. The increase in average daily jail population may result from an
increase in the number of House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1006 inmates in the MCSO jail, which grew from an
average of 140 per day in 2016 to an average of 250 per day in 2017.
Peer group comparison; jail operations overtime: KPMG compared MCSO’s jail operations overtime
to publicly available overtime information for Allen County and St. Joseph County, one drawn from the
large county comparison group and the other drawn from the nearby county comparison group.
Salary quartiles: large counties Marion county St. Joseph county Allen county
Estimated Daily Jail Population 2425 636 711
Bed Capacity 2507 830 741
Number of Dedicated Jail Staff 446 156 144
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
1/2/2
015
2/2/2
015
3/2/2
015
4/2/2
015
5/2/2
015
6/2/2
015
7/2/2
015
8/2/2
015
9/2/2
015
10/2
/2
01
5
11/2
/2
01
5
12/2
/2
01
5
1/2/2
016
2/2/2
016
3/2/2
016
4/2/2
016
5/2/2
016
6/2/2
016
7/2/2
016
8/2/2
016
9/2/2
016
10/2
/2
01
6
11/2
/2
01
6
12/2
/2
01
6
1/2/2
017
2/2/2
017
3/2/2
017
4/2/2
017
5/2/2
017
6/2/2
017
7/2/2
017
8/2/2
017
9/2/2
017
10/2
/2
01
7
11/2
/2
01
7
12/2
/2
01
7
Inm
ate C
ount
Overtim
e ($)
Date
Overtime expenditure versus average inmate count
Overtime--Sum Average Inmate Count
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 58 –
To account for the differing size of the county facilities, KPMG calculated three metrics, as shown in the
chart below: overtime spend per inmate, overtime spend per jail bed, and overtime spend per jail
employee. With these controls in place, the City-County spends significantly more on overtime per
inmate, per jail bed, and per employee than the two comparative counties.
Salary quartiles: large counties Marion County St. Joseph County Allen County
OT Expenditures by inmate (ADP) $1,400 $964 $748
OT Expenditures by Jail Bed $1,360 $739 $718
OT Expenditures by Jail Employee $7,630 $3,930 $3,693
As shown in the figure below, MCSO’s overtime expenditures per inmate were $1,400, 40 percent
above those of St. Joseph County and 80 percent above those of Allen County. MCSO’s overtime
expenditures per jail bed were $1,360, approximately twice those of both St. Joseph County and Allen
County.
Demand, Jail Division
MCSO’s average daily population jumped sharply from an average of 2,165 inmates in 2015 to an
average of 2,425 in 2016. With this increase, MCSO’s jail population grew from 86 percent of capacity in
2015 to 97 percent of capacity in 2016. MCSO’s jail population has remained at or above 97 percent
capacity since 2016, holding at levels MCSO terms “crisis mode.” These capacity challenges impose a
strain on MCSO’s staff and facilities. MCSO leadership believe that increased demand and reduce
staffing increases MCSO’s liability and risk of accidents, as well as employee burnout.
This increase likely stems in part from higher numbers of arrests, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to
2017, bookings into jail increased by 11 percent from 2015 to 2017, as well as the impacts of House
Enrolled Act 1006, which requires individuals convicted of low-level felonies to serve their sentences in
county jails or community corrections programs. The graphics below show MCSO’s average daily
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Marion County St. Joseph County Allen County
Overtim
e E
xpenditure
Sheriff's Office
Jail overtime per inmate and per bed, county comparison
Overtime per inmate Overtime per jail bed
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 59 –
population and jail capacity from 2015 to 2018, as well as the percent increases in the number of arrests,
bookings, and jail inmates in the City-County.
The number of HEA 1006 inmates in MCSO jails has grown since 2016. In 2016, MCSO housed an
average of 140 HEA 1006 inmates per day; in 2017, this number grew to an average of 250 per day, and
as of June 2018, MCSO was housing an average of 334 HEA 1006 inmates per day. This trend is detailed
in the figure below, which shows the daily count of HEA 1006 inmates from January 2016 to July 2018.
It is important to note that the state reimburses MCSO $35 per day for each HEA 1006 inmate housed.
However, the cost of a jail bed in MCSO is $75 per day, so MCSO is responsible for the $40 differential.
Based on increases in the average number of HEA 1006 in MCSO jails, the project team estimates that
MCSO’s expenses related to HEA 1006 inmates have grown from $200,000 in 2016 to $490,000 in 2018,
assuming the current average daily HEA 1006 population remains steady through the end of the year.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Jail U
tiliz
atio
n
Average D
aily P
opula
tio
n
Year
Average daily population and jail
utilization
Average number of inmates daily
Jail utilization
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
% increase,
arrests
% increase,
bookings
% increase,
average daily
jail
population
Rising jail demand, 2015-2017
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 60 –
National peer agency benchmarking research shows that MCSO is not alone in its jail capacity
challenges: 4 counties in the comparative peer group had average jail populations above 100 percent of
capacity, and 6 of the 7 comparison counties for which information was publicly available had populations
above 90 percent of their total capacity.
MCSO may benefit from an assessment of opportunities
to reduce bed demand while preserving or enhancing
public safety. Other jurisdictions have used jail utilization
studies to identify subsets of their jail population that may
benefit from alternative housing or community-based
programming, as well as the highest utilizers of criminal
justice services, who may benefit from targeted
solutions.
Evidence suggests that a significant number of MCSO
inmates are held for low-level charges. For example,
61 percent of MCSO inmates have an average length of
stay between one to five days. Additionally, many of the
most common arrest charges booked into an MCSO
facility are low level, including driving while suspended,
public intoxication, and possession of paraphernalia.
104%
104%
103%
101%
101%
95%
93%
79%
74%
66%
62%
59%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Jefferson County, TN
Hamilton County , OH
Richmond County, GA
East Baton Rouge, LA
Marion County, IN
Virginia Beach, VA
Denver, CO
Franklin County, OH
Jacksonville-Duval County, FL
Suffolk County, MA
Davidson County, TN
Lake County, IN
Jail Utilization
County
Jail utilization across counties
61%
30%
4%5%
Average length of stay
1 to 5 days
5 to 50 days
51 to 100 days
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 61 –
Arrestee transportation costs
Overview and summary of findings
The Jail Division’s Arrestee Transportation section transports arrestees by wagon from the custody
of the arresting officer (typically at the site of their arrest) to Intake. MCSO wagons transported 88
percent of all arrestees in 2015 and 2016; this number grew to 89 percent in 2017–2018. Arrestees
not picked up by an MCSO wagon are typically transported by the arresting officer.
Overtime dedicated to arrestee transportation increased by 200 percent from $94,000 in 2015 to
$281,000 in 2017. Arrestee transportation has consumed an increasing share of MCSO’s total
overtime costs, up from 4 percent in 2015 to 6 percent in 2017.
As was the case with the Jail Division as a whole, increasing overtime expenditures in the Arrestee
Transportation section result from increasing demand occurring at the same time as reductions in
staffing. The number of arrestees transported by MCSO grew by 9 percent from 2015 to 2017, from
33,000 to 35,000 transports per year. In part, this reflects an increase in the total number of arrestees
in the City-County, which grew by 7 percent from 2015 to 2017. This also reflects the increased
demand as MCSO conducted a slightly higher percentage of arrestee transports as compared to the
arresting officer, up from 88 percent of all transports in 2015 to 89 percent in 2017.
Even as demand rose, the number of deputies assigned to the section declined by 25 percent, from
31 staff in 2015 to 25 staff in 2017. This decline reflects MCSO’s difficulties with recruiting and
retention office-wide. Based on the schedule received by KPMG, staffing for the Arrestee
Transportation section appears relatively flat across shifts, with seven or eight postings for both the
day and night shifts each day of the week. To maximize efficiency given its current resources, MCSO
could develop optimized schedules based on historical trends in demand for arrestee transportation.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Theft
Driving While Suspended
Domestic Battery
Resisting Law Enforcement
Possession of Marijuana
Battery Resulting in Bodily Injury
Public Intoxication
Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated
Battery
Possession of Paraphernalia
Number of charges
Charge
Top 10 arrest charges2015 2016 2017 2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 62 –
KPMG identified a number of opportunities for demand management and process efficiencies related
to arrestee transportation, as outlined on pages 70-72.
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Average
staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $1.9 million $2.1 million 31 $94,000
2016 $1.9 million $2.3 million 28 $250,000
2017 $1.8 million $2.2 million 25 $281,000
2018 (through
June)
$1.9 million $1 million 23 $145,000
*Yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends, arrestee transportation
MCSO’s annual expenditures on arrestee transportation have remained relatively constant at $2.1–$2.3
million per year from 2015 to 2017. Expenditures exceeded the adopted budget for arrestee
transportation each year from 2015 to 2017, growing from a 12 percent difference in 2015 to a
22 percent difference in 2017.
Staffing trends, arrestee transportation
Arrestee transportation staffing has declined by 25 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 31 staff to 25 staff.
Staffing for the Arrestee Transportation section appears flat, with seven or eight postings for both the
day and night shifts each day of the week. While MCSO tracks the number of deputies assigned to the
section, the Jail Division cross-utilizes its staff, meaning drivers may be temporarily reassigned from the
Arrestee Transportation section to another jail section based on the jail’s needs that day. This cross-
utilization is an efficient tactic to allow MCSO to use its staffing to best meet its demand each day.
However, MCSO does not currently track the number of drivers that are actually deployed each day and
the number of transportation staff that are cross-utilized. KPMG recommends that MCSO begin tracking
the number of wagons actually deployed each shift in order to allow for an analysis of trends in demand
for transport by time of day, by shift, and by day of the week.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 63 –
Overtime trends, arrestee transportation
Overtime dedicated to
arrestee transport increased
by 200 percent between 2015
and 2017, from $94,000 in
2015 to $281,000 in 2017.
The majority of this increase
occurred between 2015 and
2016: overtime grew by
67 percent as staffing
declined 10 percent and the
number of transports
increased 12 percent.
Overtime increased again
from 2016 to 2017 by $31,000
or 12 percent, as the section’s
staffing declined by another
10 percent as the number of
transports held constant.
Arrestee transportation has consumed an increasing share of MCSO’s total overtime costs, up from
4 percent in 2015 to 6 percent in 2017.
Demand trends, arrestee transportation
The number of arrestees
transported by MCSO, as
opposed to the arresting
agency, grew by 9 percent
from 29,000 in 2015 to 31,000
in 2017. This reflects a slight
increase in the share of
arrestees transported by
MCSO: in 2015–2016, 88
percent of arrestees were
transported by MCSO; this
number grew to 89 percent in
2017–2018. Arrestees not
transported by MCSO are
typically transported by the
arresting agency. The increase
in demand also reflects an
increase in the total number of
arrests in the City-County,
which grew by 7 percent from
2015 to 2017, from 33,000 to 35,000.
For arrestees transported by MCSO, as the volume of arrestees has increased while expenditures have
remained stable, the expenditure per arrestee has fallen from $74.02 in 2015 to $70.81 in 2017.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
2015 2016 2017
Staffin
g
Overtim
e expenditures
Year
Staffing compared to overtime expenditures
Staffing Arrestee transportation overtime
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2015 2016 2017
Average E
xpenditure per A
rrestee
Num
ber of A
rrestees
Year
Total arrestees compared to average expenditure
per arrestee
Arrestees Expenditure per arrestee
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 64 –
There are temporal trends in arrests in the City-County, as illustrated in the figures below. As discussed
in the opportunities section of this section of the report, MCSO can maximize productivity by aligning
staffing to these trends in demand.
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Num
ber of A
rrests
Month
Average number of arrests by month, 2015-2017
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Num
ber of A
rrests
Hour of the Day
Average number of arrests by hour of day, 2015-2017
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 65 –
CAD wagon data analysis
The project team analyzed a data set of Computer Aided Dispatch data provided by MCSO that included
arrestee transportation calls for service from 2015, 2016, 2017, and January 1 through October 1, 2018.
Call Distribution by Requesting Agency
The number of wagon calls for
services responded to by
MCSO grew by 6 percent from
2015 to 2017, from 36,293 in
2015 to 38,527 in 2017. As of
October 1, 2018, MCSO had
responded to 27,298 calls,
putting the office on track to
for an annual call volume in
2018 in line with its 2015 level.
Approximately 90-92% of
MCSO calls for transport each
year come from IMPD.
Approximately 3% of MCSO
calls each year are received
from the City of Lawrence
Police Department; 2-3% of
calls come from the Beech
Grove Police Department, and
1-2% of calls per year are
received from the Speedway
Police Department. The
remaining 1-2% of calls each
year are either uncategorized in
the data or come from an out
of county law enforcement
agency, such as a police
department outside of Marion
County or the Indiana State
Police.
Number of calls for transport by year and requesting agency
Requesting agency 2015 2016 2017 2018
IMPD 32,943 35,912 35,341 24,630
City of Lawrence Police Department 1,098 1,300 1,103 7,88
Beech Grove Police Department 786 711 823 722
Speedway Police Department 746 659 559 419
All other agency or uncategorized 720 673 746 739
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
38000
40000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of C
alls
Year
Calls per year, by agency
All Other Agency or Uncategorized
Speedway Police Department
Beech Grove Police Department
City of Lawrence Police Department
IMPD
91%
3%
2%2% 2%
Share of arrests/calls for transport by agency, 2015-
2018
IMPD
City of Lawrence Police
Department
Beech Grove Police
Department
Speedway Police
Department
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 66 –
Call Distribution by Zip Code
Calls for arrestee transport are not distributed evenly throughout Marion County and its surroundings. In
the CAD data provided, MCSO had conducted transit runs to 63 zip codes since 2015. Ten of these zip
codes account for 62% of calls for transport. Twenty zip codes account for 88% of MCSO’s calls for
service. The heat map below illustrates the distribution of calls for service in zip codes in Marion County.
The tables at the bottom of the page list each zip code from which MCSO has received a call since 2015
and the share of total calls received from that zip code.
Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls
46201 9% 46202 4% 46237 2%
46203 7% 46226 4% 46216 1%
46218 7% 46224 4% 46250 1%
46222 6% 46208 3% 46268 1%
46219 6% 46225 3% 46214 1%
46204 6% 46205 3% 46217 1%
46241 5% 46221 2% 46220 1%
46227 5% 46229 2% 46260 1%
46254 5% 46235 2% 46240 1%
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 67 –
Call Distribution by Time of Day
The figure on the
right shows the
average number of
wagons deployed
by MCSO at each
hour of the day,
drawing on
historical CAD data
from 2015 to 2018.
The number of
wagons deployed
by MCSO varies by
time of day. While
MCSO has an
average of three
wagons on the
road at any given
time, actual
deployment levels can vary between one to seven.
As shown in the figure above, the number of calls for transport that MCSO responds to appears to vary
based on the availability of wagons. Under MCSO’s current data recording processes, incident data and
wagon transport data are not linked within the system. As a result, it is not possible to determine if the
correlation shown in the graph above is between actual demand or requested demand. It is possible that
Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls Zip Code Share of Calls
46107 1% 46168 0% 46163 0%
46239 1% 46112 0% 46249 0%
46234 1% 46123 0% 46280 0%
46236 1% 46143 0% 46077 0%
46256 1% 46142 0% 46140 0%
46228 0% 46206 0% 46158 0%
46231 0% 46183 0% 46165 0%
46278 0% 46032 0% 46167 0%
46113 0% 47012 0% 46180 0%
46259 0% 46038 0% 46282 0%
46037 0% 46149 0% 46285 0%
46122 0% 46118 0% 46290 0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Num
ber of W
agons and C
alls
Hour of Day
Average number of wagons in use and number of calls
served, by hour of day, 2015-2018
Average wagons in use Average number of calls answered
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 68 –
MCSO current staffs more wagons on the road during periods that receive higher call volume. Or it is
possible that when MCSO has more wagons on the road, they receive more calls for service.
The project team’s analysis of MCSO CAD data evidences that availability of transportation wagons has
declined marginally from 2016 to 2018. In 2016, MCSO’s wagon fleet logged an average of 79.8 wagon
hours each day. By 2018, this number had fallen to 76.1 wagon hours each day, a decline of
approximately 5 percent.
Wait times by time of day
Across all four years, the project team found that wait times for wagon drivers to respond to calls
increased significantly as drivers prepared to end their shift. Wagon drivers work 12 hours shifts from
6am-6pm and 6pm to 6pm. As shown in the graphs below, the project team’s analysis observed spikes
in wait times at 5am and 5pm each day. The morning increase in wait times was larger than the
afternoon increase. Across all four years, wait times increased by 57% between 4am and 5am before
falling again at 6am. In the afternoon, wait times increased by an average of 33% from 4pm to 5pm
across all four years before falling again at 6pm. This trend is illustrated in the graphs below. To address
this backlog, MCSO should consider modifying staffing at Intake to minimize driver wait time and
staggering wagon driver start time, as discussed in the opportunities section below.
Dispatch times by hour of
day
The same trend observed in
wait times is also present in
the dispatch time analysis,
with dispatch times increasing
sharply in the hour before the
shift change. Dispatch times
are calculated as the time that
elapses from when a call is
received to when a driver
commences a run. Looking at
averages drawn across all four
years of available data,
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Min
utes
Hour of Day
Wait times by year and hour of day
Average wait time, 2015 Average wait time, 2016
Average wait time, 2017 Average wait time, 2018
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Dis
patch Tim
e (M
inutes)
Hour of Day
Average dispatch time, 2015-2018
Shift change
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 69 –
dispatch times increased by more than 100% from 4am to 5am each morning and by more than 50%
from 4pm to 5pm each evening. Longer dispatch times evidences a lack of supply of available drivers.
Call Distribution by Month
The number of calls for
transport received varies
throughout the year. During
workshops and interviews,
MCSO staff stated that
arrestee numbers were
higher during the warmer
months. This appears largely
borne out by the data, with
the number of calls each
month beginning to rise in
March, remaining elevated
through the summer, and
then declining in the fall.
Wagon Driver Productivity
Wagon driver productivity
has remained constant from
2015-2018, with drivers
responding to an average of
1.3-1.4 calls per hour and
16.4-16.8 calls per 12 hour
shift.
Average Call Duration by Hour of Day
Call durations remain largely
constant throughout the day
with the exception of an
increase after the shift
change at 6am. Call
durations remain between
28 and 33 minutes for most
of the day, yet they more
than double to an average of
60-70 minutes at 6am and
7am. This increase in
duration may result from
wagons staying out longer as
they pick up the backlog of
transports that accumulated
during the shift change.
0
5
10
15
20
2015 2016 2017 2018
Num
ber of C
alls per
Driv
er
Year
Number of calls per driver per shift
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600
Num
ber of C
alls
Month
Average number of calls by month, 2015-2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Average C
all D
uratio
ns
(M
inutes)
Hour of Day
Average call duration, 2015-2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 70 –
Comparing calls for transport and arrests by month and hour of day
To compare the average number of calls for transport and arrests by month and by hour of day, KPMG’s
analysis compared two data sets provided by MCSO: CAD data showing arrestee transport and arrest
data showing the number of arrests by month and time of day. The project team’s analysis found a
correlation between the number of calls and arrests during a given month or given hour. As shown in the
graphs below, months with higher numbers of arrests tended to have higher numbers of calls for wagon
service. Similarly, there are clear temporal trends throughout the day in both arrests and calls for
transport, with demand falling during the late morning.
It is worth noting that there were some discrepancies between the arrest and CAD datasets received.
This may be an area for further investigation to determine whether there are contextual reasons for the
differences in call and arrest numbers or whether they represent errors in current data collection and
recording practices.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Num
ber of C
alls or A
rrests
Month
Average number of calls and arrests by month, 2015-2017
Average number of calls Average number of arrests
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Num
er of C
alls or A
rrests
Hour of Day
Average number of calls compared to arrests by hour of day,
2015-2017
Average number of calls Average number of arrests, 2015-2017
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 71 –
Opportunities, arrestee transportation
KPMG identified a number of demand management strategies and process improvements that may
allow for improved productivity if implemented:
Demand management
Assess opportunities to utilize citations or issue court summons, rather than arrests, for
appropriate low-level offenses. In particular, this effort could focus on the 61 percent of MCSO
inmates with an average length of stay of one to five days. Common charge types for arrests in the City-
County include driving while suspended, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia.
Officers may be able to avoid arrest in non-emergency situations for this level of offense.
Assess the potential benefits of implementing an evidence-based prebooking diversion program,
such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), that has been shown to improve recidivism
outcomes. For example, in Seattle, LEAD was targeted toward individuals suspected of low-level drug
offenses or prostitution. LEAD participants had 50–60 percent lower odds of being rearrested and 30–
40 percent lower odds of being charged with a felony subsequent to program involvement when
compared to a control group.15
An officer-assisted diversion program could reduce demand for arrestee
transport for the 80 percent of arrestees who are brought in by agencies other than MCSO. Additionally,
reducing recidivism related to low-level offenses could yield benefits to the City-County as a whole and
reduce jail costs.
Assess the potential impact of implementing a jail access fee–a fee paid by the arresting agency
to MCSO to fund services related to booking. Jail access fees are implemented by a number of
counties in California. Eighty percent of arrests in the City-County are conducted by an agency other than
MCSO. A jail access fee would provide an incentive for officers to avoid unnecessary arrests while
providing a source of revenue to cover expenses relating to intake and holding. For example, MCSO staff
members report seeing an increase in arrests whenever there is a new class of graduates from an
academy. Implementing a jail access fee may help to create a behavioral change by creating an additional
incentive to ensure arrests are only exercised when necessary to protect public safety and when
alternative measures will not suffice. It is possible that this policy shift would require approval or
cooperation at the state level.
Assess whether MCSO should continue to transport arrestees with medical needs to the hospital.
Currently, if an arrestee is determined to have a nonemergency medical need, they are transported to the
hospital by MCSO wagon, rather than taken to Intake. These individuals, however, have not yet been
booked into the jail and will require medical clearance before being taken to Intake. Should the arresting
agency retain responsibility for transporting arrestees that require medical attention to the hospital,
MCSO would see a reduction in demand for arrestee transport, as well as a potential decrease in staffing
requirements at the hospital and a reduction in medical expenditures. The impact of this
recommendation on hospital protective services is discussed on pages 75-76 of this report.
Process improvement
Transition to a demand-based staffing model. Based on the schedule received by KPMG, staffing for
the Arrestee Transportation section appears relatively flat, with seven or eight postings for both the day
and night shifts each day of the week. To maximize efficiency given its current resources, MCSO could
15
“LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report,” Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab, University of Washington,
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7-
15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4percent3D
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 72 –
develop optimized schedules based on historical trends in demand for arrestee transportation. These
schedules would optimize the number of deputies scheduled for each shift based on the representative
level of demand forecasted using typically historical call for service data. As a first step to creating this
analysis, MCSO would be required to begin accurately tracking data on the number of wagons deployed
on each shift, including when resources are reassigned to another section of the jail division. Currently,
the division tracks the number of wagons scheduled, yet drivers may be pulled off of arrestee
transportation to support at intake or with other responsibilities. If implemented, this expanded data
collection will allow MCSO to identify trends in demand for transport by time of day, by shift, and by day
of the week. Based on these trends, advanced analytics could be applied to identify the most efficient
schedules and shift patterns, taking into account MCSO policies and labor restrictions. The creation of an
optimized, demand-based schedule has been shown to boost productivity in other jurisdictions.
Modify intake staffing to allow wagon drivers to drop off arrestees and immediately return to
their transport responsibilities: Due to infrastructure and staffing constraints, the intake process can
create a bottleneck for wagon drivers. When wagons arrive at Intake, drivers wait with the arrestees they
transported to provide supervision until the arrestees enter the intake processing area. If Intake is
particularly busy, or if multiple wagons arrive simultaneously, multiple drivers may be waiting at the
Intake facility for as long as an hour until all of their arrestees have been booked into intake. This leaves a
reduced number of wagons available to conduct arrestee transportation. Adjusting staffing or
implementing infrastructure modifications to allow wagon drivers to hand off their inmates and
immediately return to their transportation duties could boost the section’s productivity.
Stagger wagon driver shift times to allow for consistent wagon availability on the road: The
project team’s CAD data analysis found that wait times increased sharply at 5am and 5pm, immediately
prior to shift changes for wagon drivers. The team hypothesized that these wait times may arise as most
drivers return to Intake in the final hour of their shift to drop off their arrestees at Intake. As discussed
above, a backlog at Intake can cause wagon drivers to remain off the road for an extended time. MCSO
should consider the potential benefits of staggering shift start times to ensure all wagon drivers do not
converge on Intake simultaneously, leaving few to no wagons on the road.
Implement tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign runs to the appropriate
wagon driver: MCSO wagon drivers can view all pending requests for arrestee transport through the
CAD system in their vehicle. MCSO drivers then flag a particular pickup in the system before going to
retrieve the arrestee, in an attempt to ensure that multiple drivers do not travel to retrieve the same
individual. During KPMG observations, MCSO drivers appeared to have significant discretion over which
arrestees they would choose to pick up, and their decision-making process did not appear to be guided
by standard operating procedures. In interviews, drivers expressed that experienced drivers learn to work
together over time; however, the current lack of standard operating procedures creates opportunities for
errors and inefficiencies. For example, at one point, two wagon drivers simultaneously arrived at the
same location to pick up two arrestees who were both located at that location. MCSO could improve
efficiency within the Arrestee Transportation section by adopting a tasking and coordination system that
assigns wagon drivers to the most efficient routes and pickups. Such a system could also allow for
improved performance management by division leadership.
Improve cooperation among MCSO partner agencies: There may be opportunities to improve
coordination between MCSO wagon drivers and arresting agencies, to facilitate efficient routing and
pickups. Currently, there does not appear to be a formal system guiding which wagon driver picks up
which arrestee. Drivers were once assigned to quadrants and would pick up arrestees in their territory;
however, this system has broken down as staffing levels have declined. MCSO may be able to increase
productivity by implementing prioritization and routing systems to help ensure MCSO drivers as using the
most efficient routes to pick up arrestees.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 73 –
Similarly, MCSO and the arresting agency at times duplicate transports. For example, if the arresting
officer collects drug paraphernalia or other items that need to be delivered to IMPD headquarters, they
must drive to the Intake building to deliver these items. However, in interviews, wagon drivers reported
that in these cases, arresting officers often still call a wagon to transport their arrestee, resulting in both
the arresting officer and the wagon conducting the same route. In these circumstances, it would be
recommended that the arrestee remains in the custody of the arresting officer who would assume
responsibility for conducting the arrestee transportation.
Assess cost of providing upgrades to improve reliability of wagon air conditioning: MCSO’s wagon
fleet struggles to consistently provide adequate air conditioning to both the driver and arrestee
compartments. As a result, wagons must return to intake within two hours of picking up an arrestee.
Given the extreme temperatures that can occur in Indianapolis, a lack of air conditioning can pose a
safety risk to both MCSO staff and arrestees.
Medical security costs
Overview and summary of findings
The Jail Division provides security to arrestees and inmates who receive treatment at Eskenazi
Hospital.
MCSO’s annual expenditures on arrestee and inmate medical security have remained relatively flat at
$1.2–$1.3 million per year from 2015 to 2017.
The section’s staffing has also remained flat at an average of 17 deputies per year. However, this
metric does not appear to reflect actual staffing with the section. When demand for deputies is high
at Eskenazi Hospital, MCSO reassigns deputies from other posts within the Jail Division, including
arrestee transportation and jail operations. This is a recommended practice, providing resiliency, and
allows MCSO to most efficiently utilize its available staffing to meet demand. However, as there is
no data to track the deployed staffing level, the scheduled staffing levels do not accurately reflect the
need for staff at Eskenazi.
Overtime dedicated to inmate medical security increased by 146 percent between 2015 and 2017,
from $61,000 in 2015 to $150,000 in 2017. Inmate medical security overtime has accounted for
approximately 3 percent of total MCSO overtime costs each year from 2015 to 2017.
At the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain charges require 24-hour supervision by deputies,
known as “sitters.” The need for sitters can sharply increase demand for deputies at Eskenazi. In
2016 and 2017, approximately 1,200 inmates or arrestees at the hospital required a sitter, and the
average length of stay for an arrestee requiring a sitter was 1.2–1.4 days. This demand data suggests
that MCSO requires sitters for 1,440–1,680 days per year, requiring continuous supervision 24-7. The
MCSO data set with information about “sitters” lacked a discharge date for approximately 9 percent
of inmates/arrestees each year. KPMG has excluded these individuals from the analysis due to lack
of data. Future efforts to estimate the demand for sitters at Eskenazi Hospital could benefit from
expanded data tracking on the average length of stay and reason for individuals who require sitters.
KPMG identifies a number of opportunities for efficiencies related to inmate medical security on
pages 70-72 of this report.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 74 –
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Average
staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $1.1 million $1.2 million 17 $61,000
2016 $1.0 million $1.2 million 17 $137,000
2017 $1.1 million $1.3 million 17 $150,000
2018 (through
June)
$927,000 $598,000 15 $76,000
*Yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends,
medical security
MCSO’s annual
expenditures on inmate
medical security have
remained flat at $1.2–$1.3
million per year since 2015.
MCSO is on track to spend
in this range in 2018 based
on year-to-date
expenditures.
Staffing trends,
medical security
Inmate medical security
staffing remained steady at
17 deputies from 2015 to
2017, before declining by 12 percent, or 2 deputies, to 15 staff in 2018.
It is important to note, however, that this metric does not reflect the actual staffing consumed by inmate
medical security. When demand for deputies is high at Eskenazi Hospital, MCSO reassigns deputies
from other posts within the Jail Division, including arrestee transportation and jail operations. This is a
recommended practice as it provides resiliency and allows MCSO to most efficiently utilize its available
staffing to meet demand. However, as this actual staffing level is not compiled, currently recorded
staffing levels do not accurately reflect the need for staff at Eskenazi. KPMG recommends that MCSO
begin tracking the number of deputies present at Eskenazi each day to improve measurements of
demand and forecasting of staffing requirements.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2015 2016 2017
Expenditures
Year
Budgeted expenditures compared to actual
expenditures
Total Budgeted Total Expenditures
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 75 –
Overtime trends, medical security
Overtime dedicated to inmate
medical security increased by 146
percent between 2015 and 2017,
from $61,000 in 2015 to $150,000 in
2017. The majority of this increase
occurred from 2015 to 2016, when
overtime costs grew by 124 percent.
As demand data is not available for
2015, it is difficult to assess the
driver of these increased
expenditures from 2015 to 2016.
Overtime expenditures increased by
10 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Demand for sitters decreased by
approximately 14 percent during this
period. While the number of
individuals requiring sitters held
constant at approximately 1,200 each year, the average length of stay decreased from 1.4 days in 2016
to 1.2 days in 2017. This resulted in sitters for 1,680 bed days in 2016 versus 1,440 days in 2017.
While demand for sitters
decreased, increased
overtime in 2017 may have
resulted from growth in the
total number of arrestee
transports to Eskenazi,
which grew by 23 percent
from 2016 to 2017.
As shown in the figure to
the right, salary
expenditures for inmate
medical security are largely
in line with the adopted
salary budget for inmate
medical security. This
suggests overtime levels do
not result from unfilled
vacancies for this function.
However, an assessment of
required staffing levels based on demand should be conducted, which could help to reduce overtime
expenditures.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of S
taff
Overtim
e S
pendin
g
Year
Medical security overtime compared to staffing
Staffing Medical Security Overtime
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2015 2016 2017
Fundin
g
Year
Salary budget versus salary and overtime
expenditures
Salary Expenditures Overtime Expenditures
Salary Budget
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 76 –
Demand trends, medical security
The total number of arrestees
transported to Eskenazi Hospital
grew by 23 percent between 2016
and 2017, from 3,205 in 2016 to
3,952 in 2017. This data was not
available for 2015.
At the hospital, arrestees or inmates
with certain charges require 24-hour
supervision by deputies, known as
“sitters.” The need for “sitters” can
sharply increase demand for
deputies at Eskenazi.
In both 2016 and 2017,
approximately 1,200 inmates or
arrestees at the hospital required a
sitter. While the number of individuals requiring sitters held constant, the average length of stay
decreased from 1.4 days in 2016 to 1.2 days in 2017. This resulted in sitters for 1,680 bed days in 2016
versus 1,440 days in 2017, a decrease of 14 percent.
MCSO data about inmates or arrestees who require “sitters” lacked a discharge date for approximately
9 percent of inmates/arrestees each year. As a result, KPMG has excluded these individuals from the
analysis. Future efforts to estimate the demand for sitters at Eskenazi Hospital could benefit from
expanded data tracking on the average length of stay and reason for individuals who require sitters.
Opportunities, inmate medical security
KPMG identified a number of steps that MCSO may consider to improve data collection and reduce costs
related to inmate and arrestee medical security:
Expand data collection to allow for measurement of demand: MCSO can improve measurement and
forecasting of demand for deputies at Eskenazi Hospital by tracking the section’s actual staffing,
including deputies reassigned temporarily, as well as the average length of stay of all arrestees/inmates
who require “sitters.” This expanded data collection will also enable MCSO to adopt demand-based
scheduling and overtime optimization for this section.
Assess impact of requiring arresting agency to provide medical security to arrestees or to
reimburse MCSO for the cost of arrestee medical security: Currently, arrestees who require medical
attention are booked remotely at the hospital and their medical costs become the responsibility of
MCSO. As a result, the MCSO budget bears the burden of costs incurred because an arresting officer at
an outside agency chose to make an arrest.
The City-County Council and mayor could consider two options to reduce this cost burden on the MCSO
budget:
• First, the City-County Council, Mayor, and sheriff could require the arresting agency to retain
responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital and providing medical security until the
arrestee is medically cleared to enter an MCSO jail. MCSO-funded hospital protective services
should be limited to inmates already booked into the jail.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2016 2017
Num
ber of Transports
Year
Arrestee transports to Eskenazi Hospital
Street arrests APC hold MCJ hold
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 77 –
• Alternatively, the City-County may determine that as a custody agency, MCSO is best equipped to
provide protective services to arrestees at the hospital. In this case, the City-County could consider
requiring the arresting agency to reimburse MCSO for the fully loaded cost of transportation and
protective services provided to the arrestee. The option makes considerable sense considering the
low cost profile of MCSO and the professional training to do the job.
In both scenarios, the City-County could consider requiring the arresting agency, rather than MCSO,
to assume responsibility for the arrestee’s medical expenses, security, and transportation until they
are medically cleared to be booked into an MCSO jail facility.
These changes would result in a realigning of some costs for arrestee medical security to IMPD,
which accounts for 70 percent of arrests. It would also result in additional revenue directed to the
City-County from the 10 percent of arrests that are conducted by outside agencies such as the
Lawrence, Beech Grove, or Speedway Police Departments or Indiana State Police.
Criminal Division
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 79 –
Criminal division
Key responsibilities of the Criminal Division include serving in-county criminal (felony and misdemeanor)
warrants, maintaining and monitoring the Sexual and Violent Offenders (SOVO) registry, and operation of
the Failure to Appear section. KPMG’s assessment of Criminal Division operations focused primarily on
the Criminal Warrants section and SOVO Registry section.
Overview and summary of findings
A number of Criminal Division responsibilities not related to warrants or the SOVO registry were
transferred to the Judicial Enforcement Division in 2016. This reorganization resulted in significant
changes to the Criminal Division’s budget and staffing. Expenditures on Criminal Division operations
fell by 56 percent from 2015 to 2016 as responsibilities were reassigned. Criminal Division staffing
50 percent from 2015 to 2017, from 145 staff in 2015 to 72 staff in 2017.
Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division.
This was expressed as a pain point for many Criminal Division deputies, pertaining to the risks that
can accompany field operations when serving warrants or conducting SOVO checks.
While the Criminal Division’s portfolio has shifted, demand is increasing for two of the Criminal
Division’s core responsibilities: serving in-county criminal warrants and monitoring SOVO offenders.
The number of warrants served by the Criminal Division grew by 137 percent from 2015 to 2017.
The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under supervision grew by 15 percent during
the same period.
Criminal Division overtime has decreased even as MCSO’s overall overtime usage has increased: the
Division accounted for 14 percent of total MCSO overtime expenditures in 2015 and just 4 percent in
2017. Criminal Division overtime expenditures fell by 33 percent from 2015 to 2017 as the Division’s
responsibilities were reassigned. While the Division’s overall overtime expenditures have declined,
overtime increased by 24 percent in the Criminal Warrants section, as discussed on page 85 of this
report.
KPMG identified a number of opportunities for efficiencies to increase productivity within the
Criminal Division, focusing on the criminal warrants and SOVO registry sections, as discussed on
pages 83-84 and 87-88 of this report.
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Share of
MCSO budget Staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $11.1 million $10.6 million 9% 145 $0.3 million
2016 $5.1 million $4.7 million 4% 75 $0.1 million
2017 $8.1 million $5.7 million 5% 72 $0.2 million
2018 (through
June)
$4.0 million $2.7 million 4% 78 $0.1 million
*staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 80 –
Budget trends, Criminal Division
MCSO’s expenditures on Criminal Division operations fell by 56 percent from 2015 to 2016 as a large
portion of the Division’s responsibilities were reassigned to the Judicial Enforcement Division. Despite
the realignment of responsibilities, the Division’s expenditures then grew by 21 percent from 2016 to
2017 and appear on track to surpass their 2017 levels in 2018 based on year-to-date expenditures.
Staffing trends, Criminal Division
Criminal Division staffing
fell by 48 percent from
2015 to 2016 as
responsibilities were
transferred to the Judicial
Enforcement Division. In
total, Criminal Division
staffing fell by 50 percent
from 2015 to 2017, from
145 staff in 2015 to 72
staff in 2017.
In focus groups and
interviews, MCSO staff
expressed frustration
regarding pay inequities
between deputies in the
Criminal Division as
compared to the Jail
Division. This disparity
negatively affects morale.
In particular, deputies
commented that the pay disparity was disproportionate based on the job responsibilities within each
division in particular the risks involved in serving warrants. MCSO has developed a plan, Plan 2018, to
create pay parity across MCSO but will require funding to implement this plan in future budgets.
Overtime trends, Criminal Division
Criminal Division overtime has decreased even as MCSO’s overall overtime usage has increased: the
division accounted for 14 percent of total MCSO overtime expenditures in 2015 and just 4 percent in
2017.
Criminal Division overtime expenditures fell by 62 percent in 2016 as the Division’s responsibilities and
staff were realigned to the Judicial Enforcement Division. From 2015 to 2017, Criminal Division overtime
fell from 14 percent of the MCSO total to 4 percent, while Judicial Enforcement Division overtime grew
from 3 percent to 10 percent of MCSO’s overtime totals.
However, overtime expenditures increased by 75 percent between 2016 and 2017. The 2016–2017
increase likely resulted from increasing demand for the Division’s remaining responsibilities, as warrants
served increased by 65 percent and offenders monitored grew by 10 percent, while the Division’s
staffing held constant.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of S
taff
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Criminal Division staffing against overtime
Total Staffing Overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 81 –
Demand trends, Criminal Division
The number of warrants served by the Criminal Division grew by 137 percent from 2015 to 2017. The
number of warrants served grew by 43 percent from 2015 to 2016 and by 65 percent from 2016 to 2017.
The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under supervision grew by 4 percent from 2015 to
2016 and 11 percent from 2016 to 2017. Additional detail on demand trends for the SOVO Registry and
Criminal Warrants sections are available in the relevant sections of the report below.
Opportunities, Criminal Division
Pay parity: Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail
Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many Criminal Division staff, given the level of risk that
can be associated field operations when conducting SOVO checks. Pay parity across MCSO divisions
could increase staff morale and retention.
An in-depth examination of the operations of the Criminal Warrants section and SOVO section is included
in the following pages.
SOVO registry
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Average
staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $0.8 million $976,000 12 $19,000
2016 $1.0 million $768,000 11 $27,000
2017 $1.3 million $790,000 9 $16,000
2018 (through
June)
$0.7 million $383,000 9 $6,000
*yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of O
ffenders
Num
ber of W
arrants
Year
Warrants and SOVO demand
Total warrants Offenders under supervision
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 82 –
Budget trends, SOVO Registry
MCSO’s annual expenditures on SOVO registry monitoring have declined by 20 percent since 2015.
MCSO spent between $760,000 and $780,000 per year on SOVO duties in 2016 and 2017 and is on track
to spend in this range in 2018. MCSO’s SOVO expenditures have consistently fallen short of the
budgeted amount.
Staffing trends, SOVO
Registry
SOVO staffing declined by 25 percent
between 2015 and 2017, from 12
deputies to 9 deputies. This reduction
in staffing likely stems from MCSO’s
difficulties recruiting and retaining
employees and contrasts with rising
levels of demand within the section,
as detailed below.
Overtime trends, SOVO
Registry
The SOVO Registry section consumes
less than 1 percent of total MCSO
overtime expenditures, typically
totaling less than $20,000 per year.
Based on year-to-date expenditures,
SOVO registry overtime expenditure
is on track to be lower in 2018 than in previous years, and it appears to be reducing despite an uptick in
the number of offenders under supervision.
Demand trends, SOVO
registry
While budget expenditures and
staffing have declined since 2015,
demand in terms of the number of
offenders under supervision has
increased. The total number of
offenders monitored through 30-day
checks by SOVO deputies increased
by 15 percent from 2015 to 2017,
from 493 to 567. As the number of
individuals monitored has risen, the
section’s expenditures per monitored
offender have decreased from $1,980
per offender in 2015 to $1,393 in
2017.
Indiana state law requires checks to be conducted on a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once
every 90 days. Currently, the SOVO section conducts these checks every 30 days—more often than
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of S
taff
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
SOVO overtime expenditures as compared to
staffing
Staffing (Average by year)
SOVO Overtime, Expenditures
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of Indiv
iduals
S
upervis
ed
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
SOVO overtime expenditures as compared to
individuals under supervision
30 day checks conducted SOVO overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 83 –
legally required. As discussed in the “Opportunities” section on page 83, MCSO could assess the impact
of switching to a risk-based monitoring tool on both efficiency and effectiveness.
When benchmarking the City-County to other jurisdictions, the City-County appears to have
comparatively high levels of demand for SOVO Registry services. Marion County has the third highest
number of registered sex offenders per square mile, at approximately 7, amongst its peer agencies
nationally. The Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office led the comparison group at 21 per square mile, while the
average across the group was 4.9 per square mile.
In 2018, there are a total of 1,739 sex offenders registered in Marion County, 656 of which are sexual
violent offenders, upon which MCSO conducts checks every 30 days. The additional offenders are
assigned to field deputies to monitor in the course of their daily duties. When compared to the per capita
population, Marion County has the second highest sex offender population, as shown in the graphic
below.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office
Denver Sheriff Department
Marion County Sheriff Office
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office
Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office
East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Fayette County Sheriff’s Office
Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office
Lake County Sheriff's Department
Numbered of Registered Sex Offenders
Sheriff's O
ffic
e
Registered sex offenders per square mile, by county
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Richmond County Sheriff's Office, GA
Marion County Sheriff Office, IN
Davidson County Sheriff's Office, TN
East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, LA
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, FL
Denver Sheriff Department, CO
Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office, PA
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, TN
Fayette County Sheriff’s Office, KY
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, IN
Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office, VA
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, OH
Lake County Sheriff's Department, IN
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, MA
Number of Registered Sex Offenders
Sheriff's O
ffic
e
Sex offenders per capita
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 84 –
Productivity, SOVO Registry
Based on the number of offenders monitored in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to
identify an appropriate staffing level for the SOVO Registry section. KPMG made a number of
assumptions based on the information received in focus groups and interviews; these assumptions were
designed to be conservative. MCSO can refine this analysis to determine the number of SOVO registry
staff required to meet demand. For example, the productivity analysis below includes a recommended
staffing level if MCSO continues its current policy of conducting checks every 30 days and a
recommended staffing level if MCSO shifts to a policy of conducting checks every three months, as
legally mandated.
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to conduct SOVO check 0.5
Travel time 1
Paperwork/impairment time per check 0.5
Total hours per SOVO check 2
MCSO monitored 567 registered offenders in 2017. Based on the current policy of conducting checks
every month, this work would have required 6,804 checks, which would have consumed 13,608 hours of
deputy time.
Based on KPMG’s calculations, an MCSO deputy’s productive hours—the number of hours available to
work after training, sick, and vacation leave are factored in—were 1,782 over the course of 2017. Based
on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately eight deputies over the course of the
year to conduct 13,608 checks. The SOVO Registry section’s staffing was nine deputies as of 2017, two
of whom are dedicated to tips and investigations.
If MCSO were to shift to a policy of conducting checks every 90 days, as required by law, monitoring 567
offenders would require 2,268 checks, which would consume 4,536 hours of deputy time. Based on
MCSO’s productive hours, this would allow the SOVO section to meet its checks with a staff of three
deputies.
Opportunities, SOVO Registry
Implement a risk-based approach to SOVO monitoring: Indiana state law requires checks to be
conducted on a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once every 90 days. Currently, the SOVO
section conducts these checks every 30 days—more often than legally required. There may be an
opportunity to review the internal requirement for 30-day checks on this population of registered
offenders to ensure it is in line with leading practices and based on the associated level of risk.
For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses using a risk assessment tool to
measure an offender’s associated risk and then tailoring supervision intensity to this risk level. The
organization notes, “Sex offenders vary in their risk of reoffending, and respond differently to various
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 85 –
forms of treatment and supervision.”16
IACP argues, “Valid and accurate risk assessments allow law
enforcement to allocate resources to those offenders posing the greatest threat to the community.”17
The implementation of a risk-based verification tool could be used to determine the intensity of
monitoring required for offenders on an individual basis, i.e., which offenders require additional checks
and which could be supervised per the requirements of the statute. The use of a risk-based tool would
allow for prioritization of checks and ensure the appropriate timeliness of checks. In addition, it could
assist in alleviating capacity and potentially increasing the effectiveness of SOVO personnel to allow
them to conduct more thorough checks and investigations.
Review MCSO process for registering offenders: Currently, SOVO registration is conducted by one
lieutenant during the day shift, who completes the registration and collects the required information from
the offender. As registration operates 24 hours a day and seven days a week, after-hours registration is
an ancillary duty for Records staff. During workshops, MCSO staff reported that due to the lack of
assigned staff for after-hours registration, this can lead to higher error rates and may increase the risk for
MCSO and the public. These mistakes can create risk for MCSO if they are later not able to locate SOVO
offenders and can create additional work for the staff who must correct these errors. MCSO may benefit
from assessing the most efficient staffing and force mix for this post. For example, a lower cost resource
than a lieutenant may be able to conduct these duties during the day, and the position may benefit from
dedicated after-hours staff. The registration process is also an opportunity to assess whether an offender
is also being supervised by other City-County agencies, such as probation or community corrections, who
may be able to serve as partners in the City-County’s monitoring efforts.
Implement routing optimization to improve efficiency: The SOVO section may be able to increase its
productivity through the adoption of routing software to identify the most efficient means for each
deputy to conduct their assigned checks. Currently, deputies spend approximately 15 minutes a day
calculating their route for the day; this is conducted via various means depending on the deputy however
generic free mapping tools are primarily used. A specialized routing software that could also account for
prioritization of checks could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of SOVO personnel.
Criminal Warrants
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Average
staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $1.0 million $1.4 million 20 $61,000
2016 $1.5 million $1.6 million 24 $55,000
2017 $2.7 million $1.7 million 26 $75,000
2018 (through
June)
$1.7 million $0.7 million 20 $27,000
16
“Registering and tracking sex offenders,” IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, http://www.theiacp.org/model-
policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/08/SexOffenderPaper.pdf
17 “Sex offenders in the community: Enforcement and prevention strategies for law enforcement,” International Association of
Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 86 –
*yearly average drawn from quarterly staffing charts and rounded to nearest FTE
Budget trends, Criminal Warrants
MCSO’s annual expenditures on criminal warrants grew by 25 percent from 2015 to 2017, from $1.4
million to $1.7 million. Based on year-to-date spending, they appear on track to return to near their 2015
levels in 2018 based on year-to-date expenditures.
Staffing trends, Criminal Warrants
Criminal Warrants staffing increased by approximately 30 percent from 2015 to 2017 before returning to
its 2015 level in 2018.
Overtime, Criminal Warrants
As MCSO’s overall overtime expenditures have increased, Criminal Warrants overtime has declined as a
share of total overtime expenditures. In 2015, Criminal Warrants accounted for 2.8 percent of total
MCSO overtime; by 2017, this number had fallen to 1.6 percent.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
2015 2016 2017
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Criminal warrants overtime compared to staffing
Staffing Criminal warrants overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 87 –
Overtime expenditures appear to fluctuate based on staffing and demand. Overtime fell from 2015 to
2016 as staffing increased, even as the number of warrants served grew by 30 percent. Overtime,
however increased from 2016 to 2017 as the number of warrants served increased by an additional
40 percent while staffing increased by just 8 percent.
Demand, Criminal
Warrants
The number of criminal warrants
served more than doubled
between 2015 and 2017,
increasing from 1,890 to 4,482.
With this increase, the expenditure
per warrant served fell by 47
percent.
Even as the number of warrants
served has increased, the ratio of
felony to misdemeanor warrants
has remained constant at 3:1.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of W
arrants S
erved
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Number of warrants served compared to overtime
Total warrants served Criminal warrants overtime
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of W
arrants
Year
Felony and misdemeanor criminal warrants
served
Felony warrants Misdemeanor warrants
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 88 –
Productivity, Criminal Warrants
Based on the number of warrants served in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to identify an
appropriate staffing level for the Criminal Warrants section. While KPMG made a number of assumptions
based on the information received in focus groups and interviews, MCSO can refine this analysis to
determine the number of staff required in the Criminal Warrants section to meet demand.
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to serve warrant 1
Travel time (given an average of two attempts per successful
serving of warrant)
2
Paperwork/impairment time per warrant 0.5
Total hours per deputy to serve a warrant 3.5
Three deputies are required to serve a criminal warrant. As a result, based on KPMG’s assumptions, it
takes 10.5 hours of deputy time to serve one criminal warrant.
Given that the section served 4,482 warrants in 2017, this work would have required 47,061 deputy
hours.
Based on KPMG’s calculations, an MCSO deputy’s productive hours—the number of hours available to
work after training, sick, and vacation leave are factored in—were 1,782 over the course of 2017. Based
on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately 26 deputies over the course of the year
to serve 4,482 warrants.
This productivity is in line with the section’s 2017 staffing of 26 deputies. Section staffing has fallen to
approximately 20 deputies in 2018. As a result, this productivity analysis would forecast a potential
reduction in the number of warrants served in 2018.
Opportunities, criminal warrants
Adopt prioritization system for serving warrants: MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a system
of risk-based prioritization to help ensure the highest priority warrants are served first and that
appropriate resources are allocated to a warrant based on risk. Warrants are issued by the court and
received by the Criminal Warrants section daily through a number of channels. MCSO could benefit from
adoption of a system that collates warrants in real time and allows for prioritization based on charge type
or the probability of success based on historical information. This could increase the effectiveness of
deputies and allow for an improved “hit rate.”
Implement tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign responsibilities to the
appropriate employee: Demand for services in the Criminal Warrants section comes in a variety of
forms, including Crime Stoppers tips, ankle bracelet violations, manual handovers from previous shifts,
and intra-office e-mails. In interviews, MCSO staff stated that each supervisor prioritizes and assigns
tasks differently. The Criminal Warrants Section could benefit from developing standard operating
procedures across shifts and supervisors that govern how warrants are prioritized and allocated to help
ensure consistency in operations and clear direction within the section. In addition, it was noted that
there is no system in place to track demand from the multiple sources, how warrants have been
assigned, and if tasks and requests have been completed or are still pending. Currently, this information
is verbally passed between supervisors or communicated through e-mail. The introduction of a tracking
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 89 –
system would provide a clear picture of demand within the section, facilitate communication between
supervisors, and allow for real-time reporting.
Assess potential benefits of consolidating Criminal Warrants and Judicial Enforcement warrant
sections: MCSO should consider the efficiencies that could be gained from the consolidation of the
Criminal Warrants section and the Judicial Enforcement Warrants section. Both sections provide a similar
service, only differentiated by the primary type of warrant; however, Judicial Enforcement does serve
out-of-county criminal warrants. Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived
from the consolidation of the sections.
Judicial Enforcement Division
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 91 –
Judicial Enforcement Division Judicial Enforcement Division responsibilities are divided across a number of sections, including Civil
Services, Public Services, and Courtline. KPMG’s analysis of the Judicial Enforcement Division focused
primarily on its processes under civil warrants and civil process and providing court security.
Overview and summary of findings
The Judicial Enforcement Division’s expenditures doubled from 2015 to 2016 due to a realignment of
responsibilities from the Criminal Division. Staffing grew by 80 percent, and overtime increased by
406 percent during this period. Staffing held steady from 2016 to 2017, growing by just six
employees, while overtime increased by a further 45 percent to approximately $500,000.
From 2015 to 2017, Judicial Enforcement Division expenditures grew by 116 percent, staffing
increased by 88 percent, and overtime increased by 632 percent. With this increase, the Judicial
Enforcement Division has grown to become the second highest consumer of overtime after the Jail
Division. Judicial Enforcement accounts for approximately 10 percent of MCSO overtime annually. It
is important to note, however, that due to overtime recording practices in the Judicial Enforcement
Division, some of these overtime expenditures may reflect hours worked in the jail by Judicial
Enforcement deputies. As a result, it is possible that the overtime figure shown above overstates the
true cost of overtime in the Judicial Enforcement Division.
In addition to the responsibilities acquired by the Judicial Enforcement Division in 2016, demand also
appears to be growing within parts of the Division’s traditional portfolio. Under the Civil Process
Section, the number of protective orders received increased by 112 percent from 2,665 in 2015 to
5,637 in 2017. In focus groups, Courtline Section staff reported that the number of courts served by
the Division has grown in recent years and currently stands at 39. The number of warrants served by
the Division’s Civil Warrants Section decreased by 62 percent from 3,875 in 2015 to 1,474 in 2017.
In some sections, the Judicial Enforcement Division has not been able to meet increases in demand.
In 2017, as the number of protective orders received doubled, the Judicial Enforcement Division
served 50 percent more protective orders than the previous year yet still saw its completion rate for
protective orders fall from 83 percent to 58 percent. Additionally, between 2015 and 2017 there was
a 62 percent decline in the number of warrants served, as well as a decline in UTTs, tows, and
warnings issued. This could suggest there were errors in the orders resulting in an inability to serve
or that the increase in demand was too significant for the section’s current staffing and processes.
KPMG identified a number of opportunities to increase operational efficiency within the Judicial
Enforcement Division, as outlined within this section.
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Share of
MCSO budget Staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $4.7 million $4.8 million 4% 91 $69,000
2016 $8.9 million $10.1 million 9% 165 $348,000
2017 $6.3 million $10.2 million 9% 171 $504,000
2018 (through
June)
$8.0 million $5.1 million 8% 160 $263,000
*staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 92 –
Budget trends, Judicial Enforcement
Annual expenditures on judicial enforcement doubled from 2015 to 2016, as some functions were
realigned from the Criminal Division. Expenditures have held steady at approximately $10 million per year
in the years since and appear on track to maintain this level in 2018, based on year-to-date expenditures.
Judicial Enforcement operations accounted for 4 percent of the total MCSO budget in 2015 and has
since risen to 8–9 percent of the total MCSO budget.
Staffing trends, Judicial Enforcement
Judicial Enforcement Division staffing
increased by 88 percent between 2015 and
2017. Total staffing in the Judicial
Enforcement Division grew by 81% from
2015 to 2016 and by an additional 4 percent
from 2016 to 2017. These increases may
have resulted from the Division’s increased
portfolio as functions were transferred from
the Criminal Division: from 2015 to 2017,
Judicial Enforcement staffing grew by 80
staff while Criminal Division staffing fell by
73.
Court Security is the largest section within
the Judicial Enforcement Division with 52
deputies and one civilian, approximately 30
percent of the Division’s staffing as of June
2018. Thirty-one deputies are assigned to the
Public Services Section, making it the
second largest section within the Division.
Nine deputies are assigned to Civil Process,
and four are assigned to Civil Warrants.
Overtime trends, Judicial Enforcement
The Judicial Enforcement Division’s overtime expenditures increased by 406 percent from 2015 to 2016
as the Division absorbed responsibilities from the Criminal Division. Overtime expenditures then grew by
an additional 45 percent from 2016 to 2017. The Division’s overtime expenditures for 2018 appear on
track to match or surpass their 2017 levels, based on year-to-date expenditures. This increase in overtime
expenditures stems from the Division’s expanded portfolio, as well as increases in demand in some of
the Division’s traditional responsibilities. This increase is also somewhat offset by the reduction in
Criminal Division overtime.
The Judicial Enforcement Division accounts for 10 percent of MCSO’s total overtime, making it the
second highest consumer of overtime after the Jail Division. Additionally, due to overtime recording
practices in the Judicial Enforcement Division, some overtime expenditures attributed to the Judicial
Enforcement Division in this analysis may actually reflect hours worked by Judicial Enforcement deputies
in the jail. As a result, it is possible that the overtime figure shown above overstates the true cost of
overtime in the Judicial Enforcement Division.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of S
taff
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Staffing compared to overtime
Total Staffing Overtime
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 93 –
Demand trends, Judicial Enforcement
Demand within the Division appears to
be increasing across some functions.
The number of protective orders
received increased by 112 percent from
2015 to 2017. Additionally, in interviews
and materials provided to the project
team, Judicial Enforcement staff
reported that the number of courts
served by the Division has grown in
recent years. In addition, some judges
have begun requesting two deputies in
their courtroom, while other judges
prefer to work with the same deputy
each day. There may be opportunities
for MCSO to work with the courts to
strengthen policies and processes
around Courtline services - for example,
ensuring that MCSO receives the court
schedule more than 24 hours in
advance, and allowing for the rotation of
deputies through courtrooms to
maximize resilience.
While demand has increased, the Civil Warrants Section’s ability to serve this demand has fallen. The
number of warrants served by the Division’s Civil Warrants Section decreased by 62 percent from 3,875
in 2015 to 1,474 in 2017. During workshops, it was noted that three deputies are required to serve a
warrant, and the entire Civil Warrants Section has fallen from eleven employees in 2016 to four in 2018,
which may have contributed to the decline in warrants served. Deputies also commented that they had a
success rate of 20 percent to 30 percent per day when serving warrants.
In terms of protective orders, despite the Division’s staffing and expenditure increases, the Division was
not able to meet these increases in demand. In 2017, 50 percent more protective orders were served
than the previous year however, 2,000 were not served. As a result, the completion rate for protective
orders fell from 83 percent to 58 percent. Judicial Enforcement leadership noted that many of these
unserved orders were missing a service address or had been directed to the wrong jurisdiction by the
court. In cases in which a warrant was not served, the Judicial Enforcement Division requires the three
attempts and research measures to locate the subject of any protective order and/or warrant.
Judicial Enforcement Division staff also noted that deputies are currently responsible for a number of
ancillary duties, such as providing security to the Judicial Enforcement office and providing traffic details
to the City-County, which compete for time with their core responsibilities.
Productivity, Civil Warrants
Based on the number of warrants served in 2017, KPMG conducted a productivity analysis to identify an
appropriate staffing level for the Civil Warrants Unit. KPMG made a number of assumptions based on the
information received in focus groups and interviews. These assumptions were designed to be
conservative. MCSO can refine this analysis to determine the number of staff required in the Criminal
Warrants Unit to meet demand.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of orders or w
arrants
Year
Protective orders and civil warrants
Protective Orders received but not served
Protective Orders served
Civil warrants served
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 94 –
Activity analysis: assumptions Time (hours)
Time to serve warrant 0.5
Travel time (given an average of two attempts per successful
serving of warrant)
2
Paperwork/impairment time per warrant 0.5
Total hours per deputy to serve a warrant 3
A minimum of two deputies are required to serve a civil warrant. As a result, based on KPMG’s
assumptions, it takes six hours of deputy time to serve one civil warrant.
The Civil Warrants section served 1,474 warrants in 2017. Based on the assumptions outlined above, this
work would have required 8,844 deputy hours. A MCSO deputy’s productive hours in 2017 were 1,782.
Based on these productive hours, MCSO would require approximately five deputies over the course of
the year to serve 1,471 warrants.
The Civil Warrants section’s 2017 staffing was four deputies and has remained at this level in 2018.
Productivity, Civil Process
In workshops and materials provided to the KPMG team, MCSO management noted that Civil Process
deputies serve an average of 40 papers per day.
The Civil Process Section served approximately 44,600 papers in 2017. Across MCSO, deputies worked
an average of 1,796 productive hours in 2017, once sick leave, vacation, and training were taken into
account. These productive hours equate to approximately 244 eight hour shifts. Assuming civil process
deputies served 40 papers during each of these shifts, the Section would require five deputies to serve
44,600 papers in a year. In 2017, the Civil Process Section had a staff of ten deputies.
Opportunities, Judicial Enforcement Division
KPMG identified a number of opportunities to increase operational efficiency within the Judicial
Enforcement Division:
Implement internal pay parity: Similar to the Criminal Division, salaries for deputies in the Judicial
Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a
pain point for many staff as they are undertaking field operations. Pay parity across the divisions could
increase staff morale and retention.
Develop consistent prioritization system for serving warrants: Currently, the Civil Warrants Unit
typically experiences a backlog of warrants waiting to be served. As a result, the Unit may benefit from
consistently applying a system of risk-based prioritization for serving warrants. For example, the Unit may
choose to prioritize warrants based on type (such as out-of-county criminal versus in-county
misdemeanor), charge, or offender characteristics (for example, repeat offenders). In addition, the Civil
Process Unit does not consistently conduct any form of prioritization other than by type of paper to be
served. A prioritization tool which could prioritize by type, risk, likelihood for success, and other relevant
factors could help increase the effectiveness of the Unit.
Implement a routing system to identify the most efficient route to accomplish assigned tasks:
Once warrants and papers have been prioritized appropriately, the Judicial Enforcement Division may
benefit from the use of an automated routing system capable of determining the most efficient route to
accomplish a deputy’s assigned tasks. Currently, deputies use a range of free mapping tools to
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 95 –
determine their route for the day, spending approximately 15 minutes a day on this task. A specialized
routing software could automate this task while incorporating the appropriate prioritization from a
prioritization tool.
Adopt a tasking and coordination system to collate demand and assign to the appropriate
employee: A review of the Civil Process Unit in August 2016 revealed that the deputies pulled their
routes, wrote their dailies by hand, coordinated and mapped their own stops, and spent many hours in
the office. These actions consumed approximately 1.25 hours per deputy per day, significantly reducing
their time in the field. The 2018 KPMG review identified a similarly heavy administrative burden on
deputies, and the Unit may benefit from further action to resolve this challenge. Within the Civil Process
Unit, deputies are assigned their tasks on a daily basis by an administrative assistant. These tasks are not
sorted or allocated in any order; the deputies must stamp each paper for returns, approximately 40 per
day, before manually typing each address into a generic map-based software to determine their route for
the day. Once their route has been determined, the deputy spends approximately 30 minutes manually
sorting their papers into the correct order to be served according to the route. At the end of the day, the
deputy is required to re-sort their papers into the order previously provided by the administrative
assistant. Conservatively, this process consumes approximately 1.25 hours per deputy per day,
significantly reducing their time in the field. This equates to 2,600 hours per year, assuming eight
deputies working five days per week, which is almost one full time equivalent (FTE) employee worth of
time spent on the manual sorting of papers. MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a tasking and
coordination system that eliminates the repeated reorganization of papers, instead ordering them based
on priority and optimal route. Additionally, the Judicial Enforcement Division may experience increases in
productivity by reducing deputies’ ancillary duties, such as providing security to the Judicial Enforcement
office and providing traffic details to the City-County.
Assess potential benefits of combining criminal warrants and judicial enforcement warrant units:
As previously outlined, MCSO should consider whether efficiencies may be gained from the combination
of the Criminal Warrants Unit with the Judicial Enforcement Warrant Unit. Both units provide the same
service, only differentiated by the primary type of warrant. The Criminal Division serves in-county criminal
warrants while the Judicial Enforcement Division serves in-county civil warrants and out-of-county
criminal warrants. Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived from the
consolidation of the units. For example, it was noted during workshops that the civil warrant unit has
been limited to four staff, when three deputies are required to serve a warrant, for a number of years
which may have contributed to the decline in warrants served. In the event of consolidation, an
assessment of combined demand could be conducted to determine appropriate staffing levels for the
new section.
Communications Division
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 97 –
Communications Division
The Communications Division is responsible for receiving 911 calls and assigning them to the appropriate
law enforcement officer, serving as a link between the public and the 26 law enforcement areas in the
City-County. The 911 call center processes approximately two million calls or text exchanges each year.
Overview and summary of findings
Demand serviced by the Communications Division has changed in recent years. The number of 911
calls received has decreased by 9 percent per year from 2015 to 2017. Some of these calls appear to
have been replaced by text messages. The Communications Division began allowing for text-based
communications in late 2015. Dispatchers engaged in 39,000 text sessions in 2016 and 47,000 in
2017.
Annual expenditures for the Communications Division have remained relatively constant at $8–$8.5
million per year from 2015 to 2017. Staffing declined from 158 staff in 2015 to 145 in 2017;
additionally, the number of individuals assigned to 911/Dispatch responsibilities declined by 10
percent during this period. Meanwhile, overtime expenditures grew by 50 percent from 2015 to
2017.
Dispatch managers expressed concern that the Division averages 27 seconds to answer a 911 call,
above the national standard of 10 seconds.
Year
Adopted
budget
Expenditures
(inc. overtime)
Share of
MCSO budget Staffing*
Overtime
expenditures
2015 $7.9 million $8.5 million 158 $281,000 $0.3 million
2016 $8.3 million $8.0 million 149 $259,000 $0.3 million
2017 $7.7 million $8.5 million 145 $426,000 $0.4 million
2018 (through
June)
$7.6 million $4 million 136 $291,000 $0.3 million
*Staffing drawn from annual budget presentations
Budget trends, Communications Division
Communications Division annual expenditures have remained relatively constant at $8–$8.5 million per
year since 2015. The Division is on track to spend within this range in 2018, based on year-to-date
expenditures.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 98 –
Staffing trends, Communications Division
Communications Division staffing
declined by 8 percent from 158 staff in
2015 to 145 staff in 2017. During this
period, the number of employees
assigned to 911/Dispatch functions
declined by 10 percent from 135 to 121
employees.
Additionally, the Division’s staffing has
declined since 2017. As of August 2018,
Communications Division staffing had
fallen to 136 employees, a decrease of
14 percent from its 2015 level.
Overtime trends,
Communications
Division
Communications Division overtime decreased by 8 percent from 2015 to 2016 before growing by
65 percent from 2016 to 2017. While overall staffing at the Division held steady from 2015 to 2017, this
increase in overtime may result from the decline in the number of staff assigned to 911/Dispatch duties.
The Communications Division had 135 individuals assigned to 911/Dispatch duties in 2015 and 2016. This
staffing level fell by 9 percent from 2016 to 2017, the same period in which the Division experienced
overtime increases.
Demand trends, communications division
The number of 911 calls received decreased
by 9 percent per year from 2015 to 2017.
Some of these calls appear to have been
replaced by text messages. The Division
began allowing for text-based
communications in 2015. Dispatchers
engaged in 39,000 text sessions in 2016
and 47,000 in 2017. The expenditures per
call has increased from $6.84 in 2015 to
$8.22 in 2017 as the number of calls has
fallen, while the Division budget has
remained constant.
Opportunities
KPMG identified a number of areas in which
operational and policy changes may
increase the productivity of the Communications Division:
Bring salaries in line with the market average: During interviews, Communications Division leadership
reported difficulties recruiting and retaining quality candidates, resulting in vacancies within the Division.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
2015 2016 2017
Staffin
g
Overtim
e E
xpenditures
Year
Dispatch overtime against staffing
Staffing (Average by year)
Dispatch Overtime, Expenditures
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2015 2016 2017
Num
ber of C
alls and Text
Se
ssio
ns
Year
911 calls received and text sessions
Total 911 Calls Received Total Text Sessions
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 99 –
The Division was running 19 vacancies in July 2018 and reported running as many as 35 vacancies in
recent months.
A 2015 study commissioned by the City-County found the starting salary for new Marion County PSAP
employees is approximately 23.6 percent lower than both the surrounding Central Indiana PSAPs and the
nearest comparable sized county outside of Indiana (DuPage County, IL). While dispatch staff received a
salary increase in 2017, KPMG’s analysis found that dispatchers in Marion County continue to earn
significantly less than dispatchers in other Indiana counties. Dispatchers can gain average pay raises of
$2,500 to $10,000 by leaving Marion County for a similar position in counties adjacent to Marion County,
as shown in the graphic below. Dispatchers in Lake County, Indiana receive an average annual take-home
pay of $50,195, approximately $13,000 above the average in Marion County.
*This figure draws on publicly available compensation information, which shows annual take-home pay,
including overtime.
At approximately $37,000, the average dispatcher in the City-County earned 17 percent below the market
average of $43,000 in take-home pay, which includes salaries and overtime compensation. This market
average was defined as the average take-home pay for a dispatcher across the comparison group,
composed of the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County and five counties adjacent to
Marion County. Bringing dispatch staff pay in line with the market average may boost recruiting and
retention and help reduce the Division’s overtime expenditures.
Assess opportunities for demand management: A significant percentage of 911 calls are for
nonemergency situations. Online reporting for non-urgent crimes (e.g., theft) could help manage demand
and help ensure MCSO dispatchers are available for emergency calls. Additionally, the increase in text
sessions may show a public appetite for alternative methods of reporting and resolution.
$46,847.83
$46,073.81
$42,139.63
$39,486.71
$36,928.76
Hamilton County
Hancock County
Johnson County
Morgan County
Marion County
Mean Take-Home Pay
County
Mean take-home pay, dispatcher – nearby counties
Fleet Analysis
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 101 –
Fleet analysis
Fleet composition
The KPMG team analyzed data provided by MCSO and consisted of a vehicle inventory, current mileage
report, fleet repair costs for CY 2016 through CY 2018, and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office Fleet
Replacement plan, not dated. Currently, there is no official inventory of all MCSO vehicles with
acquisition date, funding source, and additional equipment.
The MCSO fleet comprises 351 vehicles with a total mileage, of all units, greater than 33 million miles.
The fleet is made of the following vehicle types:
Make Style Count Make Style Count Make Style Count
Chevy 3500 2 Ford BUS 1 Pontiac SED4 1
BUS 1 CRV 68 Suzuki ATV 1
IMP 12 E350 5 Trailers 3
MVAN 1 F250 1
Total 351
TAHO 9 TAU 4
TRK 1 TRK 1
VAN 36 VAN 22
Chrysler SED4 6 Gator ATV 1
Dodge CARA 1 Harley
Davidsons
FLHT 8
CHRG 151 Jeep CHER 1
DUR 2 KOMA 1
TRK 6 MERC GMRQ 3
VAN 1 Nissan SED4 1
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 102 –
The age of the fleet is relatively high with 76.4 percent of the fleet greater than 5 years old and
comprising 29.3 million total miles (88.8 percent of the total fleet miles).
From a mileage perspective 156 of the total 351 units have greater than 100,000 miles. Based off of
Indianapolis Fleet Manual subsection 6.1, 47 percent of the fleet has reached or exceeded its useful life.
As indicated in the Report to MCSO of Finance and Management, City-County Vehicle Fleet, dated
March 15, 2018, the MCSO fleet is relatively old and has a large proportion of high mileage vehicles.
From a useful life perspective, fleets that comprise a relatively large number of old and high mileage
vehicles are more expensive to maintain due to a higher frequency of repairs and increasing cost of older
model parts.
Fleet utilization
In order to enhance efficiencies of the fleet, it is important to first understand if the vehicles provided are
meeting the transportation needs of the MCSO. Dodge Chargers make up the largest portion of the
MCSO fleet as this make and model are what is used as the take-home fleet for officers. Currently,
MCSO has 151 Chargers out of a total population of 351 (43 percent of the total fleet). Analyzing this
vehicle class shows that the annual mileage is approximately 12,564 annually. There are currently 66
vehicles (44 percent of the population) that fall below this average annual usage threshold. Additionally,
there are 14 vehicles that are “Unassigned” and used as a pool of vehicles that can be utilized as
needed. Within the “Unassigned” population of vehicles, only three fall below the average mileage
threshold. This high level of usage indicates that MCSO is already utilizing a vehicle pooling methodology.
The second largest segment of the vehicle population are Ford “CRVs” that account for 57 of the 351
total vehicles, 16 percent of the population. The average annual miles driven for CRVs is 14,544 miles.
There are currently 31 units within this vehicle class that are below the average annual mileage. That
constitutes 54 percent of the population that is driven less than the average.
With 97 vehicles (28 percent of the total fleet) across the two largest vehicle categories below the
average annual usage, there may be an opportunity to rightsize the overall fleet to be aligned with the
transportation needs of the MCSO staff.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Num
ber of V
ehic
les
Year
Vehicle count by model year
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 103 –
Cost to deliver
In order to develop a cost-to-deliver figure, the KPMG team analyzed the repair costs for the fleet over a
three-year period (2016 through 2018) and included four types of costs: Parts, Labor, Fuel, and
Commercial. The commercial costs are representative of any maintenance that was outsourced to a
private provider and not conducted in-house. The total costs to maintain the fleet by year are:
Year Total cost
2016 $ 1,433,030.71
2017 $ 1,532,003.06
2018 $ 795,592.95*
*The 2018 figures are year to date and do not constitute a full year.
Breaking down these aggregate costs by looking at the cost-to-repair units by model year, it is evident
that older vehicles are costing more to maintain than new units:
In addition to costing relatively more per unit to repair, the older vehicles (model years 2008, 2009, and
2011) make up the largest proportion of the fleet population. This indicates that MCSO is paying a
relatively higher cost per unit across a larger number of units to maintain its fleet.
Across the approximately three years of data, MCSO’s fleet has cost $2.17 million to maintain (excludes
fuel costs). The vehicles within the red square, vehicle years 2008 to 2011, have accounted for
$1.38 million of the total costs. This population of vehicles represents the largest drag on the
maintenance operations and represents 63 percent of the total costs to maintain.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Popula
tio
n D
ensity
Repair C
osts
Year
Repair costs and population density by year
# of Units Avg. Cost per unit
Largest cost per
unit and largest
number of units
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 104 –
Opportunities
KPMG identified a number of opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness related to fleet
operations.
Conduct a benchmarking study of similar Sheriff’s Offices to understand how similar MCSO is to
peer agencies: This benchmarking could compare MCSO’s operating fleet metrics, such as number of
vehicles, fleet composition (average age and mileage), and cost to maintain, etc. Additionally, this
analysis could determine how many peer organizations also utilize a vehicle take-home program similar to
MCSO’s current policy. The results of such analysis could serve to build a case for MCSO to reengage
with leadership in an effort to budget for fleet modernization. This type of peer benchmarking may also
serve to highlight areas where MCSO may be able to drive opportunities for efficiency.
The MCSO fleet appears to have some portion of the fleet that is underutilized when compared to the
average annual miles driven. Cost efficiency from a capital (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX)
perspective could be gained if MCSO further utilized a vehicle pool methodology and disposing of
underutilized vehicles. The reduction of vehicles would result in cost avoidance as the dispositioned
vehicles would not be replaced. Further cost savings would be realized through reduced maintenance
and fuel costs.
In order to maintain parity with the current view that take-home vehicles are a fringe benefit of the role,
MCSO could institute a mileage reimbursement for officers. This would represent a lower cost option to
pay officers by the mile as they drive into work and then utilize a pool vehicle for official duties. Further
analysis would be required to ascertain the optimal mix of pool versus take-home fleet vehicles.
Investigate implementing an optimal replacement cycle: There are replacement guidelines and
thresholds; however, MCSO is not funded to be compliant with these guidelines. MCSO’s fleet paradigm
is akin to a “buy and hold” strategy that lowers CAPEX as new vehicles are rarely purchased. However,
this strategy is more expensive in the long term as the OPEX costs of the older vehicles escalate.
Across the approximately three years of maintenance data, there are 58 vehicles that cost MCSO
$10,000 or more in repair costs (Not including fuel costs). In total, this population has cost MCSO
$738,000 across the timeframe. MCSO should undertake a replacement cycle financial analysis to
determine the optimal replacement cycle and funding/financing options. There may be further
opportunities to reduce CAPEX and OPEX by exploring leasing options versus outright purchase of
MCSO vehicles.
Institute a robust metrics program that tracks OPEX costs by vehicle: Monitoring maintenance costs
by vehicle type and age will enable MCSO fleet managers to make data-driven decisions in regards to
vehicle dispositions. The current “buy and hold” methodology without active cost monitoring disguises
the true life cycle costs of each unit. Additionally, actively monitoring repair costs will assist in
highlighting the optimal point on the repair curve for vehicle disposition in order to maximize residual
value.
Detailed Recommendations
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 106 –
Detailed Recommendations
Office strategy
Consider the development of a strategic plan to outline clear goals and facilitate coordination
across divisions
Organizations often benefit from defining long-term goals and developing plans to facilitate and measure
progress toward these goals. Authoring a strategic plan could help MCSO outline an agreed-upon set of
priorities to guide leadership decision making. For example, if MCSO’s strategic plan were to define
boosting morale as a goal, MCSO leadership could evaluate the extent to which a wide range of
processes across divisions and sections tie into the goal—including pay and promotion pathways, shift
assignments, overtime policies, internal communications, and employee recognition efforts. This
recommendation is critical if the office is to transform; the plan is the first step in communicating a new
chosen path for the office.
Demand management
MCSO has the ability to reduce demand for arrestee transportation by approximately 14 percent through
the implementation of three demand management strategies, yielding annual cost efficiencies of
$320,000 per year based on conservative estimates.
By requiring the arresting agency, rather than MCSO, to transport arrestees to the hospital should
they require nonemergency medical care, MCSO can reduce demand for arrestee transport by 7-9
percent, enabling cost efficiencies of $160,000–$200,000 per year.
Currently, if an arrestee is determined to have a nonemergency medical need, they are transported to the
hospital by MCSO wagon, rather than taken to Intake. These individuals, however, have not yet been
booked into the jail and will require medical clearance before being taken to Intake. The arresting agency
should assume responsibility for transporting injured arrestees to the hospital.
Additionally, at the hospital, arrestees or inmates with certain charges require 24-hour supervision by
deputies, known as “sitters.” The need for “sitters” can sharply increase demand for deputies. In 2016
and 2017, approximately 1,200 inmates or arrestees at the hospital required a sitter. The arresting agency
should retain responsibility for providing “sitters,” if necessary, until an individual has been cleared to
enter the jail. This policy is common across the country and many jail systems do not accept
responsibility for the arrestee until he or she is medically cleared.
Based on jail utilization data received by KPMG, MCSO transports at least 2,200–2,800 arrestees from
the community directly to Eskenazi Hospital each year. This constitutes approximately 7-9 percent of
total MCSO arrestee transports. Based on the average cost per transport, MCSO could save $160,000–
$200,000 per year if these transports were conducted by the arresting agency, rather than MCSO.
Transferring these responsibilities to the arresting agency will allow MCSO to focus its resources on its
core responsibilities: providing medical security and transportation to jail inmates. The city will need to
consider a study to examine the budget implications as a reduction in MCSO’s budget would be needed
and a portion of current costs allocated to IMPD to fund these expenses. It could be determined that the
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 107 –
costs of MCSO doing this for IMPD costs less due to the pay differential between the two agencies, but
ultimately, a policy decision would need to be made regarding the appropriate level of funding to support
some arresting decisions that could be avoided when accused offenders are injured and need medical
attention.
Expanding the use of citations or court summons, rather than arrests, for appropriate low-level
offenses can reduce arrestee transports by 7-10 percent, allowing for cost avoidance of $160,000
to $230,000 per year.
In 2016 and 2017, approximately 17,000 instances of low-level charges--including Driving While
Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, Public Intoxication, and Possession of Paraphernalia—were filed
against arrestees transported to MCSO jail facilities. In some of these cases, officers may be able to
avoid arrest if the individual does not pose a threat to public safety. Rather, it may be most efficient for
officers to issue citations or a court summons.
Unnecessary arrests strain the MCSO workforce and constitute an inefficient use of City-County
resources. Reducing arrests that are not necessary to protect public safety would reduce demand for
both arrestee transport and jail beds in the City-County. A jail utilization study, as recommended by
KPMG, would enable the City-County to most precisely calculate the financial impact of reducing arrests
for low-level charges. Based on the average cost per transport however, if MCSO were to reduce
arrestee transport by 7-10 percent through the use of summons for low-level charges, this would enable
cost avoidance of $160,000 to $230,000 per year.
To achieve this, the City-County would need to work with all arresting agencies to develop a strategy to
increase the use of citations or court summons and to assess the potential impacts of the
implementation of this strategy.
Implementing a jail access fee—a fee paid by the arresting agency to MCSO to fund services
related to intake and booking—would create an incentive for arresting officers to avoid
unnecessary arrests while generating revenue for MCSO.
Jail access fees are implemented by a number of counties in California, typically for low-level arrests
such as misdemeanor offenses or municipal code violations. While research on the impact of these fees
is limited, the creation of a jail access fee would create incentives aligned with MCSO’s goals for
demand management. Eighty percent of arrests in the City-County are conducted by an agency other
than MCSO: approximately 70 percent of total arrests are conducted by IMPD while 10 percent are
conducted by agencies such as the Lawrence, Beach Grove, or Speedway Police Departments or Indiana
State Police.
A jail access fee would provide an incentive for arresting agencies to ensure officers minimize
unnecessary arrests. The fee could change agency behavior by passing on some of the costs incurred by
an officer’s decision to arrest, as opposed to using alternatives such as summons for low-level offenders.
As of now, arresting agencies do not bear the operational burden caused by high arrest volumes. In focus
groups and interviews, MCSO staff reported at times, seeing arbitrary increases in arrests not correlated
with any systematic increase in crime, for example, after a new class of IMPD trainees graduate from
academy.
Implementing a jail access fee would create an additional incentive to ensure arrests are only exercised
when necessary to protect public safety and when alternative measures will not suffice. This would
benefit MCSO operations, county finances, and outcomes for justice-involved residents of the City-
County. The City-County would need to explore this option via a detailed study to understand the budget
implications of partially reducing MCSO’s budget and creating a new pool of funding for IMPD to pay for
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 108 –
a portion of the current related costs related to the expenses noted above. It is possible that
implementation of this policy option would require approval at the state level.
While fee revenue generated from IMPD would just amount to an in-county transfer, revenue generated
from the 10 percent of arrests from outside agencies would be a net increase for the City-County. This
demand management strategy would also have the effect of reducing the overall jail beds consumed per
year per inmate.
Demand-based scheduling
MCSO can improve its service levels while minimizing FTEs and overtime through the
implementation of demand-based staffing and scheduling.
MCSO can optimize staffing and scheduling across divisions and sections by aligning employee supply
with demand for services. Based on observations and on the schedules provided, MCSO staffing appears
relatively flat in many divisions. Staffing levels appear based largely on the availability of staff, rather than
trends in demand. By utilizing the organization’s collection of historical data, MCSO can maximize
productivity by developing optimized schedules that take into account trends in demand for services.
These schedules would link the number of deputies scheduled for each section and each shift to the
typical demand experienced by that section at that time. A staffing and scheduling analysis can identify
optimal shift patterns by section and by post. Optimized scheduling may help to increase productivity
across the jail division; in the arrestee transportation, intake, jail operations, and within the
communications division, in particular.
By implementing a demand-based staffing model, MCSO can help ensure its staffing practices are data-
driven, smartly resourced, and in line with leading practices nationally. Based on previous projects,
optimized scheduling can allow sheriff’s offices to achieve an estimated 10 percent reduction in resource
supply hours while maintaining service levels.18
MCSO will likely need to hire given increased demand for
sheriff services; however, reducing the number of resource hours needed by 10 percent would yield
approximately $3 million per year in cost avoidance through reduced salary and overtime expenditures.
Expanded data collection to allow for complete tracking of staff supply and demand is a first step
to enable demand-based scheduling.
To lay the groundwork for an effective staffing and scheduling review, MCSO will need to expand its data
collection practices. In particular, the office should consider tracking the number of transportation
wagons out at any given time, as well as the cross-utilization of staff between sections based on
demand.
Prioritization
KPMG has identified opportunities for MCSO to concentrate its efforts on higher risk populations to most
efficiently protect public safety, given limited resources and increasing demand.
By implementing a risk-based approach to SOVO monitoring in line with supervision levels
mandated by statute, MCSO can enable a reduction of 66 percent in total checks by tailoring
supervision intensity to risk level, yielding cost efficiencies of $510,000–$650,000 to MCSO.
The number of registered sexual and violent offenders under MCSO supervision grew by 15 percent
from 2015 to 2017. SOVO section staffing fell by 25 percent during this same period. Given growing
18 Estimates drawn from previous staffing assessments and designed to be conservative.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 109 –
demand and constrained staffing, MCSO should consider adopting a risk-based approach at a more
granular level than currently adopted to most efficiently monitor its registered sexual and violent
offenders, a model endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The office currently has
no differentiation between those under active supervision.
Indiana state law requires the SOVO section to visit a Sexually Violent Predator’s principal address once
every 90 days. Currently, MCSO policy dictates that the SOVO section should conduct these checks
every 30 days, well above the legally required frequency. There is an opportunity to review the internal
requirement for 30 day checks on this population of registered offender to ensure it is in line with leading
practices.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses using a risk assessment tool to measure an
offender’s dangerousness and then tailoring supervision intensity to this risk-level. The organization
notes, “Sex offenders vary in their risk of reoffending, and respond differently to various forms of
treatment and supervision.”19
IACP argues, “Valid and accurate risk assessments allow law enforcement
to allocate resources to those offenders posing the greatest threat to the community.”20
Implementation of a risk based verification tool may enable a reduction in SOVO demand and the total
volume of checks by allowing the section to determine the intensity of monitoring on an individual basis,
targeting high-risk offenders for additional checks and supervising low-risk offenders based on the
minimums required by statute.
Alternatively, the office could also develop a randomized supervision model based on an algorithm that
determines the need for checks at any random interval while reducing the overall cost to the office and
ensuring public safety. These types of models are being used in the physical security space to deter
attacks on airports and other critical infrastructure. By randomizing the frequency of supervision,
offenders will not know when or if a check will be conducted in any 30- or 90-day period; it may be once
per quarter or four times. The model would have the capability to both assess risk factors while lowering
the number of visits and costs.
Shifting from the current policy to the legally mandated number of checks could reduce the number of
checks conducted by the section by 66 percent, yielding savings of $510–$650,000 per year based on
the average cost of a check. Even a more conservative reduction of 40 percent, which would allow the
section to keep high-risk SOVO registrants under heightened supervision, would yield savings of
$300,000–$400,000 per year.
By implementing a prioritization tool for serving warrants, MCSO may be able to increase the
number of warrants served and ensure the highest priority warrants are served successfully,
without increasing its current staffing levels.
MCSO’s Criminal and Civil Warrants units typically experience a backlog of warrants waiting to be
served. As a result, the sections may benefit from developing a prioritization tool for serving warrants
19
“Registering and tracking sex offenders,” IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, http://www.theiacp.org/model-
policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/08/SexOffenderPaper.pdf
20 “Sex offenders in the community: Enforcement and prevention strategies for law enforcement,” International Association of
Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 110 –
that considers factors such as charge type, risk, likelihood for success, and other relevant factors that
could help increase the effectiveness of the unit and contribute to a higher “hit rate.”
Tasking and coordination
MCSO can save an average of 30 minutes per deputy per day across a range of sections and units
through the adoption of a tasking and coordination system to collate and track demand, assign
tasks to the appropriate staff member, and track what work has been completed and what
remains. Taken together, these reforms could free up to $183,000 per year in deputy time to be
dedicated to other tasks.
Across a number of sections and units—including the Arrestee Transportation section, Criminal Warrants
Section, Civil Process Unit, and Civil Warrants Unit—MCSO could benefit from the adoption of a tasking
and coordination system that collates demand from numerous sources, assigns this demand to the
appropriate MCSO staff, and tracks which tasks have been completed and which are still pending.
For example, the demand for services in the Criminal Warrants Unit currently comes in a range of forms,
from Crime Stoppers tips to e-mails. In interviews, MCSO staff stated that each supervisor assigns tasks
differently, and updates on pending or completed tasks are often passed informally through e-mail or
verbally during shift changes.
MCSOs could benefit from developing standard operating procedures across shifts and supervisors to
govern how demand is allocated, ensure consistency in operations, and provide clear direction within the
section. For additional details on recommended changes by section or unit, please refer to the relevant
chapter above in the report.
Unit Estimated
savings (time)
Estimated savings
(value of deputy time)
Arrestee Transportation
Section
30 minutes per deputy per day $61,000 per year
Criminal Warrants Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $51,000 per year
Civil Process Section 75 minutes per deputy per day $60,000 per year
Civil Warrants Unit 30 minutes per deputy per day $11,000 per year
Routing
MCSO can acquire and implement routing technology to identify most efficient routes for
transportation-related services, saving 30 minutes of routing time per deputy per day or
approximately $146,000 in staff time to be dedicated to other duties.
A number of MCSO sections—including Arrestee Transportation, Criminal and Civil Warrants, and the
SOVO Registry section—may benefit from technology that directs staff to the most efficient route to
complete their tasks. In arrestee transportation, for example, arrestee pickups are not formally assigned.
Rather, when a new location is entered in CAD, the drivers claim the pickups that are closest to their
current location. This process is informal, making performance management difficult. Drivers were once
assigned to quadrants and would pick up arrestees in their territory; however, this system has broken
down as staffing levels have declined. Procuring routing software could allow for drivers to be assigned
specific pickups based on their location designed to maximize efficiency based on the location of the
wagon, its current passengers, and the length of time it has been away from Intake. Similarly, deputies
serving warrants or conducting SOVO checks could benefit from a data-driven routing system that
minimizes travel time and maximizes productive hours.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 111 –
Section/Unit Estimated
savings (time)
Estimated savings
(value of deputy time)
Arrestee Transportation
Section
30 minutes per deputy per day $61,000 per year
Criminal Warrants Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $51,000 per year
Civil Process Section 30 minutes per deputy per day $23,000 per year
Civil Warrants Unit 30 minutes per deputy per day $11,000 per year
Bring MCSO pay in line with market average
By bringing salaries in line with the market average, MCSO can improve recruiting and retention,
with a target goal of reducing vacancies by 80 percent and lowering deputy and detention deputy
attrition by 50 percent.
In focus groups and interviews, MCSO leadership reported difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, and a
number of divisions struggled to fill vacancies. MCSO’s attrition rate, which has increased from 21
percent in 2015 to 24 percent in 2017, is at the high end of estimates of the national average.21
MCSO
staff reported that issues with recruiting and retention stem in part from salary levels that are below the
market average.
KPMG compared MCSO salaries with publicly available salary data from two sets of comparison
counties: the five largest counties in Indiana after Marion County and five counties adjacent to Marion
County. These comparison cohorts included Lake County, Allen County, Hamilton County, St. Joseph
County, Elkhart County, Hancock County, Shelby County, Johnson County, and Morgan County (Hamilton
County was included in the large county cohort as well as the adjacent county cohort).
For each of the five positions assessed, the mean salary paid by Marion County was below the Peer
Agency Average (defined as the average of the mean salaries of the full comparison cohort), as shown in
the chart below. These numbers reflect average annual take-home pay, which includes overtime
compensation. Notable outliers have been removed from the analysis.
Position MCSO average Peer agency average:
Take-home
Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $54,382
Detention Deputy $39,449 $41,713
Sergeant $50,631 $61,956
Court Security $33,742 $36,409
Sheriff’s Deputy $50,631 $54,382
To maximize productivity, MCSO should look to develop a robust talent pipeline and HR policies that
drive effective performance and employee assessment. Bringing salaries in line with the market average
21
“Understanding perceptions of turnover in corrections,” Minor, Kevin et. al,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.505.1842&rep=rep1&type=pdf
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 112 –
in the City-County market will help recruit and retain high-quality employees and improve morale across
MCSO divisions.
Based on the current trainee salary and training times for deputies and detention deputies, as well as
recruiting and equipment cost data received from MCSO, MCSO spends $1.1 to $1.4 million per year
recruiting, equipping, and training deputies and detention deputies to replace those who leave the office.
As a result, a 50 percent reduction in deputy and detention deputy attrition would yield cost reductions of
$650,000–$750,000 per year. These savings could defray, but would not cover, the cost of salary
increases. However, salary increases would have a number of benefits in addition to a reduction in
training costs, including improved morale, heightened performance, and reduced recruiting costs.
By continuing its efforts to shift force mix to maximize use of detention deputies, MCSO can
create cost reductions of $2 million per year while maintaining current service levels.
In 2014, 81 percent of Jail Division staff were deputies; that number has been reduced to 52 percent in
2018 as the office has shifted duties to lower-cost detention deputies and civilian staff. By shifting to a
detention deputy-based model, MCSO is bringing its staffing policies in line with national leading
practices and shifting to a staffing model that will allow the agency to provide high-quality service at
minimal costs to the residents of the City-County.
However, MCSO’s effort to reverse the ratio of deputies to detention deputies from 3:1 to 1:3 has been
hindered by MCSO’s difficulties recruiting and retaining detention deputies. In fact, the number of
detention deputies declined from 2017 to 2018, which reflects MCSO’s challenges with retention in this
position. MCSO should create promotion pathways for the detention deputy and bring salaries in line
with market pay to allow for a change to MCSO’s force mix, which could yield cost reductions of $2
million per year based on MCSO’s current staffing mix and salaries.
Organizational structure
By redesigning its pay and promotion pathways, MCSO can incentivize retention and employee
performance, reducing attrition by 10 percent.
Promotion and rewards can be a powerful tool to maximize staff performance and increase retention.
The design of MCSO’s current pay and promotion structure does not incentivize retention. In focus
groups and interviews, deputies reported that they would be eligible for a $500 raise if promoted to
sergeant. Staff repeatedly noted that they did not feel incentivized to pursue a position with higher levels
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Sh
are
o
f T
otal P
erso
nn
el
Year
Force mix: Deputies, detention deputies, and civilians,
2014–2018
% Deputies % Detention Deputies % Civilians
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 113 –
of responsibility for such a small financial gain. The data supports the lack of financial benefit to the
sergeant position: the mean take-home pay for MCSO is similar to the mean take-home pay for a deputy
once overtime is taken into account. In interviews, staff also reported limited financial benefits to
pursuing the position of captain and noted that their annual take-home pay might actually fall as captains
are not allowed to work overtime. Additionally, the deputy pay scale does not allow for meaningful raises
after seven years of service. Due to these limited pay and promotion pathways, some MCSO staff
reported seeing their position as a job, rather than a career.
If MCSO is to retain top talent, it must provide high performers with opportunities for growth and
commensurate financial gain. Promotion and pay policies that do not reward performance can result in an
environment in which top performers leave for other agencies. To bring its HR policies better in line with
the organization’s goals of incentivizing performance and retention, MCSO should consider creating a
correctional sergeant position, to create a promotion pathway for correctional deputies, and building a
pay schedule that rewards employees for strong performance and increased responsibilities. In addition
to boosting morale and job performance, based on KPMG’s estimates of MCSO’s attrition-related
recruiting, training, and equipment costs, a 10 percent reduction in attrition could yield cost avoidance of
$110,000 to $150,000.
MCSO can boost morale within its ranks by enacting pay parity between positions in the Jail
Division and Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions.
Salaries for deputies in the Criminal Division and Judicial Enforcement Division are lower than salaries for
deputies in the Jail Division. This was expressed as a pain point for many staff, given the dangers that
can accompany field operations in the Criminal and Judicial Enforcement Divisions. The Office has
developed a plan to achieve pay parity across divisions and the City-County should dedicate the funding
necessary to implement this plan.
MCSO can achieve increased resilience and improved service levels by combining the criminal
warrants and judicial enforcement warrant sections, while allowing for a reduction in supervisory
staff.
MCSO should consider the efficiencies gain from the combination of the Criminal Warrants Unit with the
Judicial Enforcement Warrant Unit. Both units provide the same service, only differentiated by the
primary type of warrant; however, Judicial Enforcement serves out-of-county criminal warrants.
Efficiencies in productivity, resiliency, and effectiveness could be derived from the consolidation of the
units. The structure of a new unit would eliminate some middle management positions that are
duplicated across both divisions currently.
Overtime optimization
Develop policies to optimize use of overtime
While MCSO is wise to focus on reining in its overtime expenditures, there are instances in which the
use of overtime is efficient. For example, overtime shifts can be a cost-effective means of dealing with
brief or irregular periods of high demand.
MCSO current policies regarding overtime, however, do not ensure it is used intentionally or efficiently.
Staff in the Jail Division reported they would often show up at the jail unscheduled, rather than
committing to a particular overtime shift, knowing that they would be able to work overtime.
MCSO’s staffing and scheduling optimization analysis should include an assessment of which sections
might benefit from regularly scheduled overtime shifts aligned to peaks in demand and or staff
impairment. To lay the groundwork for an effective staffing and scheduling review, MCSO will need to
expand its data collection practices. In particular, the office should consider tracking the number of
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 114 –
transportation wagons out at any given time as well as the cross-utilization of staff between jail sections
based on demand.
Use of technology
By investing in systems that allow for the automation of data collection, MCSO can halve the
number of hours by staff spent on data collection.
MCSO leadership has invested significant manpower in data collection and analysis. This focus on data-
driven decision making can support continuous improvement, positive outcomes, and the most efficient
use of City-County dollars. There likely is room for improvement, however, in shifting from manual to
automated data tracking processes. Currently, data tracking occupies approximately 20 staff per week for
a portion of their time. Investments that allow for a reduction in this workload can have a positive return
on investment.
MCSO can reduce 911 calls and text message exchanges by 5 percent by creating an online
reporting tool to enable nonemergency online reporting.
A significant percentage of 911 calls are for nonemergency situations. As Dispatch staffing has declined
and the division has struggled to find qualified applicants to fill vacancies, online reporting for non-urgent
crimes (e.g., theft) provides an opportunity to manage demand and help ensure MCSO dispatchers are
available for emergency calls.
Fleet
MCSO may be able to increase vehicle fleet efficiency by utilizing a vehicle pool methodology and
disposing of underutilized vehicles. The MCSO fleet appears to have some portion of the fleet that is
underutilized when compared to the average annual miles driven. A reduction of underutilized vehicles
would result in revenue as the dispositioned vehicles would result in a salvage value. As these surplus
vehicles would not be replaced, MCSO would generate additional value through costs savings associated
with reduced maintenance and fuel costs.
To maintain the current policy of viewing take-home vehicles as a fringe benefit for officers in particular
roles, MCSO could institute a mileage reimbursement for employees. This reimbursement presents a
lower cost benefit that could be delivered to officers to reimburse them as they drive into work in their
personal vehicle and then utilize a pool vehicle for official duties. Further analysis would be required to
ascertain the optimal mix of pool versus take-home fleet vehicles.
MCSO could benefit from identifying and implementing an optimal replacement cycle. MCSO is
not funded to be compliant with its current replacement guidelines. Rather, MCSO’s fleet paradigm is
akin to a “buy and hold” strategy that lowers CAPEX as new vehicles are rarely purchased. However,
this strategy is more expensive in the long term as the OPEX costs of the older vehicles escalates.
MCSO should consider the full life cycle costs of its fleet in order to ascertain the optimal replacement
cycle.
Across the approximately three years of maintenance data, there are 58 vehicles (~17 percent of the
fleet) that cost MCSO $10,000 or more in repair costs. It is reasonable to expect this number to grow as
the fleet continues to age. MCSO should undertake a replacement cycle financial analysis to determine
the optimal replacement cycle and funding/financing options. There may be further opportunities to
reduce CAPEX and OPEX by exploring leasing options versus outright purchase of MCSO vehicles.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 115 –
Policy Options for consideration by the City-County
Demand management
The City-County can reduce demand for jail beds within the next five years by implementing
evidence-based diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration that have been shown to
improve recidivism outcomes. Well-designed diversion programs have the potential to reduce
demand for jail beds by 5 percent–20 percent, yielding cost reductions of $3.5–$13.8 million per
year.
Data suggests that a significant number of arrestees are brought in for low-level offenses, including
charges such as Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, Public Intoxication, and Possession
of Paraphernalia. Nearly two-thirds of MCSO inmates have a length of stay of one to five days.
Jail time often does little to address the root causes of criminal behavior, such as untreated mental
health or substance use disorders. Jail stays also come at significant cost to the county: holding an
individual in jail costs the City-County approximately $75 per day.
MCSO jails have been operating in “crisis mode” for the past two years, meaning they are consistently
above 97 percent capacity. Detention can be necessary to protect public safety. However, unnecessary
incarceration diverts MCSO staff resources from individuals who truly pose a public safety risk,
increasing the risk of accidents and burnout. Additionally, unnecessary incarceration can generate wider
social costs to the residents of the City-County: parental incarceration is linked to mental health issues
and antisocial behavior in children; possession of a criminal record can make it more difficult for citizens
to find housing or employment in the long term. Individuals arrested and detained in jail, even for short
stays, can miss shifts at work, losing income or even their job. These occurrences can result in negative
outcomes and increased reliance on City-County services going forward.
Drawing on research from across the United States, clear evidence exists that for specific categories of
offenders, diversion may reduce offending much more effectively than incarceration and for much less
cost.
The City-County should consider opportunities to implement, expand, and improve rehabilitative
programs and alternatives to incarceration. For example. MCSO currently employs behavioral managers
who work with inmates while they are in custody to prepare them for successful reentry. While the
theory of change behind this program is strong, it does not appear to track outcomes for its participants.
Additionally, there may be opportunities to improve collaboration among the courts, MCSO, and
community corrections.
Given its challenges involving arrestee transportation, the City-County could benefit from the
implementation of a pre-booking diversion program. For example, in Seattle, LEAD was targeted toward
individuals suspected of low-level drug offenses or prostitution. LEAD participants had 50–60 percent
lower odds of being re-arrested and 30–40 percent lower odds of being charged with a felony
subsequent to program involvement when compared to a control group.22
An officer-assisted diversion
program would reduce demand for arrestee transport for the 80 percent of arrestees who are brought in
22
“LEAD Program Evaluation: Recidivism Report,” Harm Reduction Research and Treatment Lab, University of Washington,
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7-
15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4percent3D
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 116 –
by agencies other than MCSO. Additionally, reducing recidivism related to low-level offenses could yield
benefits to the City-County as a whole and reduce jail costs.
Investing in evidence-based rehabilitative programs can generate a positive ROI by reducing future
criminal activity in the City-County. These programs can also yield significant benefits to City-County
residents by reducing crime rates while providing needed support to individuals in need.
As a first step, MCSO should consider conducting a jail utilization study to gain a data-driven
understanding of their jail population: identifying factors such as the size of the pretrial population, the
number of inmates with behavioral health needs, and the population by charge type and recidivism risk.
Based on these findings, the City-County can identify the alternatives to incarceration best suited to their
justice-involved population.
Well-designed diversion programs can reduce demand for jail beds in the City-County by 5 percent–
20 percent per year. Based on MCSO’s average daily population and jail costs on 2017, a 5 percent
reduction would yield cost reductions of $3.5 million per year, a 10 percent reduction would yield savings
of $7 million per year, and a 20% reduction would yield cost reductions of approximately $13.8 million
per year.
Public safety tax
The City-County may be able to raise more than $40 million in funding for public safety programs
by increasing local income taxes in accordance with recently passed House Enrolled Act 1263.
Signed in March 2018, House Enrolled Act 1263 allows counties to increase local income taxes to fund or
maintain corrections facilities. In many counties, governments will be able to raise local income tax rates
by 0.2 percent. In the wake of this law, the City-County may benefit from further investigation into public
safety tax revenue as a funding stream for MCSO. If permitted under HEA 1263, a 0.2 percent increase
in local income taxes in the City-County could yield an estimated more than $40 million in revenue.
There may be political obstacles to implementing such a tax at present, given that the City-County has
experienced two public safety tax increases since 2011. However, given rising demand at MCSO, the
City-County Council and mayor should consider whether such a tax would allow the City-County to make
strategic investments that can reduce recidivism in the long term—delivering a positive return on
investment, and reduce demand at MCSO, and improving outcomes of City-County residents.
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 117 –
Transition Roadmap
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 118 –
Transition Roadmap The diagram on the below outlines a potential three-year plan to implement the efficiencies
recommended above.
Appendix A: Peer agency selection process
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 120 –
Review of potential comparison counties
KPMG analyzed 34 potential comparison counties for the benchmarking analysis, based on five factors:
Consolidated City-County government structure
Population
Geographical area
Geographical distance from Marion County
Household median income.
This initial list included:
City-county State
Population
(2016)
Geographic
area
(Square
Miles)
Geographical
distance
from Marion
County
(Miles)
Household
Median
Income
Indianapolis-Marion
County, IN
Indiana 855,164 396.30 - $44,874
City and county of
Denver, CO
Colorado 693,060 153 2,149 $87,436
Augusta-Richmond
County, GA
Georgia 197,081 324.33 1,973 $103,801
Louisville-Jefferson
County, KY
Kentucky 616,261 380.42 710 $50,508
Nashville-Davidson
County, TN
Tennessee 660,388 504.03 252 $54,855
Boston-Suffolk
County, MA
Massachusetts 784,230 58.15 751 $52,435
Baton Rouge-Parish
of East Baton
Rouge, LA
Louisiana 447,037 455.37 582 $41,449
Jacksonville-Duval
County, FL
Florida 926,255 762.19 508 $38,595
Lexington-Fayette
Urban County, KY
Kentucky 318,449 283.65 584 $45,268
Philadelphia-
Philadelphia
County, PA
Pennsylvania 1,567,872 134.1 150 $53,178
Virginia Beach-
Princess Anne
County, VA
Virginia 452,602 249.02 514 $42,661
New Orleans-Parish
of Orleans, LA
Louisiana 391,495 169.42 2,534 $85,634
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 121 –
City-county State Population
(2016) Geographic
area
(Square
Miles)
Geographical
distance from
Marion
County
(Miles)
Household
Median
Income
Macon-Bibb County Georgia 152,555 249.76 4,790 $80,513
Butte-Silver Bow
County
Montana 33,853 718.48 2,175 $70,160
Unified
Government of
Wyandotte
County and City of
Kansas City, KS
Kansas 2,907,289 151.6 999 $61,105
Columbus-
Muscogee County,
GA
Georgia 197,485 216.39 2,291 $66,875
Terrebonne Parish
Consolidated
Government
Louisiana 113,220 1231.82 705 $51,980
City and County of
Honolulu
Hawaii 992,605 600.74 107 $51,991
Suffolk-Nansemond
County
Virginia 89,273 400.17 783 $48,166
Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County
Montana 9,085 736.53 456 $40,757
Lafayette-Parish of
Lafayette
Louisiana 127,626 268.72 1,333 $39,580
City and county of
San Francisco, CA
California 870,887 46.87 1,349 $39,212
Tribune-Greeley
County
Kansas 776 778.45 847 $47,000
Statesville-Echols
County
Georgia 3,962 414.89 1,000 $83,334
Chesapeake-
Norfolk County
Virginia 237,940 54.12 567 $50,089
Newport News-
Warwick County
Virginia 181,825 68.71 508 $37,108
Cusseta-
Chattahoochee
County
Georgia 10,922 248.74 839 $89,428
Athens-Clarke
County
Georgia 123,371 119.2 576 $49,890
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 122 –
City-county State Population
(2016) Geographic
area
(Square
Miles)
Geographic
distance
from Marion
County
(Miles)
Household
Median
Income
Hampton-Elizabeth
County
Virginia 135,410 51.41 527 $43,929
Preston-Webster
County
Georgia 2,599 209.12 656 $35,354
Lynchburg-Moore
County
Tennessee 6,323 129.22 438 $33,116
City and county of
Broomfield
Colorado 66,529 33.03 315 $49,496
Hartsville-Trousdale
County
Tennessee 8,271 114.19 238 $47,667
Georgetown-
Quitman County
Georgia 2,335 151.24 549 $37,072
Nantucket-
Nantucket County
Massachus
etts
11,008 44.97 556 $29,773
The City of New
York-Counties of
Bronx, Kings, New
York, Queens, and
Richmond
New York 19,745,289 NA 640 NA
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 123 –
Based on an assessment of the qualifying criteria, KPMG identified a cohort of 10 city-county entities to
guide the benchmarking comparison. After validating this comparison cohort with Marion County project
steering committee, the KPMG project team added three additional counties to this comparison cohort:
Lake County, Indiana; Hamilton County, Ohio; and Franklin County, Ohio. The final comparison cohort is
listed below:
1. Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee
2. Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office, Virginia Beach-Princess Anne County, Virginia
3. Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida
4. Denver Sheriff Office, City and County of Denver, Colorado
5. Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
6. East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7. Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office, Philadelphia-Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
8. Fayette County Sheriff, Lexington-Fayette Urban County, Kentucky
9. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, Boston-Suffolk County, Massachusetts
10. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky
11. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Lake County, Indiana
12. Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, Hamilton County, Ohio
13. Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Franklin County, Ohio
Appendix B: Sample interview and workshop questions
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 125 –
Interview and workshop questions
General Questions:
1) By year, from 2016 to 2018, how many full-time sworn deputies did your Division/Section/Unit
employ? How many correctional/detention deputies? How many civilian/classified staff?
2) As of FY 2017–2018, how many sworn deputies, correctional/detention deputies, and civilian staff
were dedicated to the following functions: arrestee transportation, inmate medical security, etc.
3) By year, from 2016 to 2018, how many staff hours were used on overtime? What was the total cost
of this overtime?
4) As of FY 2017–2018, how many overtime hours were dedicated to the following functions: arrestee
transportation, inmate medical security, etc.? What was the cost of this overtime?
5) What is your Division’s annual attrition rate, as a percentage of your total workforce?
6) What does the day-to-day process consist of for your staff in your Division/Section/Unit? What are
common pain points?
Arrestee services:
7) What is the estimated annual cost to the Sheriff’s Office of transporting arrestees?
8) What is the estimated annual cost to the Sheriff’s Office of providing security at outside medical
facilities while inmates or arrestees receive care?
Inmate Transportation:
9) What is the average daily population across all of your correctional facilities?
10) How many inmates are transported by your Office each year?
11) How many sworn deputies are assigned to transportation duties within your Office? How many
correctional/detention deputies? How many civilian staff?
12) How much overtime annually is used on transportation-related duties? (please include both hours and
total cost in dollars)
Fleet services:
13) How many vehicles does your Division operate, by type? What is your vehicle count, broken down by
unit (e.g., corrections, criminal, administrative)?
14) What is the average mileage of the vehicles in your fleet, broken down by vehicle type?
15) What is the average age of your vehicles?
16) What is the average vehicle retirement age for your fleet, by vehicle type?
Appendix C: Data received
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 127 –
Data received Subject Date
MCSO_KPMG_AGREEMENT REGARDING PROSPECTIV
E 6.pdf
Contracts and
Agreements
6/19/2018
MCSO_KPMG_AGREMENT REG. PUBLIC SAFTY.pdf Contracts and
Agreements
6/19/2018
MCSO_KPMG_ARTICLE 3. GOV. OF INDY M. C. UNIG
OV.pdf
Contracts and
Agreements
6/19/2018
MCSO_KPMG_CHAPTER 13. COUNTY SHERIFF.pdf Contracts and
Agreements
6/19/2018
2018-03-15 Report to MCSO of Finance and Management
– City County Vehicle Fleet.pdf
Reports and Analyses 6/22/2018
KSM Final Report on merger.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/22/2018
2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col
lection – Copy – Copy.xlsx
Financial Data 6/25/2018
2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col
lection – Copy.xlsx
Financial Data 6/25/2018
2015 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding Data Col
lection.xlsx
Financial Data 6/25/2018
2017_Annual_PSAP_Expenditures_and_Funding_Data_Col
lection to State 1-31-2018.xlsx
Financial Data 6/25/2018
2018 Communications Pay Rates.xlsx Financial Data 6/25/2018
2018-03-
15 Report to MCSO of Finance and Management –
City County Vehicle Fleet.pdf
Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018
APC Final Report.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018
Avg Monthly Populations.xlsx Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018
BABL 2016 Annual PSAP Expenditures and Funding D
ata Collection.xlsx
Financial Data 6/25/2018
Deputy Pay Scale 2015-2018.pdf Financial Data 6/25/2018
Dispatch Calls 2015-2017 State Report.pdf Office Operations Data 6/25/2018
Final Report – PSAP Salary Survey Sept 21 2015.pdf Financial Data 6/25/2018
Fleet Report 6-21-18.xls Office Operations Data 6/25/2018
Fully Executed CBA between the Marion County Sheri
ff and the Marion County Dispatchers and Cont.pdf
Contracts and
Agreements
6/25/2018
Historical Breakdown of Charges for Inmates In Custo
dy.xlsx
Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018
Inmate Counts and Information.xlsx Jail Operations Data 6/25/2018
MCSO Signed Agreement 2013-2014 & MOU.pdf Reports and Analyses 6/25/2018
Organization Charts 2011-2018.pdf Office Operations Data 6/25/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 128 –
Data received Subject Date
Wage Control Report 6-25-2018.xlsx Financial Data 6/25/2018
Leave Report 2014-2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
New Hire Report 2015-6-27-18 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing April 5 2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing April 25 2017 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing April 29 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing August 3 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing June 5 2017 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing June 22 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing June 22 2018 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing March 17 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing November 7 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Staffing September 14 2016 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018
Classification Quarterly to 2015 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018
Jail Statistics 2017 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018
Jail Statistics 2016 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018
2018 Budget Information Financial Data 7/3/2018
2017 Budget Detail Financial Data 7/3/2018
2016 Budget Detail Financial Data 7/3/2018
2015 Budget Information Financial Data 7/3/2018
Jail Stats 2018 Year to Date Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018
Dispatch Calls 2015-2017 Vesta Report.pdf Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
Jail Sample Schedule 2018 Jail Operations Data 7/3/2018
2015 Budget Presentation Financial Data 7/3/2018
2016 Budget Presentation Final 9-8-16 Financial Data 7/3/2018
MCSO 2018 FINAL Budget Presentation 9-5-17 REALLY
FINAL
Financial Data 7/3/2018
Arrest Information – BABL Data Request Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
2018 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
2017 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
2016 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
2015 Turnover Analysis PS Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
Hired-Left in Same Year 2015-2018 Office Operations Data 7/3/2018
Former Employee Report with Start and End date Office Operations Data 7/6/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 129 –
Data received Subject Date
Out of County Inmate 2016-2018 to KPMG Jail Operations Data 7/9/2018
2018 YTD Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2017 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2016 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2015 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2015 Attendance Totals Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2016Timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
2017timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/10/2018
07.13.2018 Inmate Count Jail Operations Data 7/13/2018
GRANT EQUIP 'A' 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
GRANT EQUIP 'B' 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2015 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2016 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
JAIL 1 & INT INVENT 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
!! TRAINING INVENT 2015 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
!! TRAINING INVENT 2016 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
!! TRAINING INVENT 2017 !!.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
07.13.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018
2015 ATTENDANCE TOTALS.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
2015 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018
2015 Revenue Report.xlsx Financial Data 7/12/2018
2016 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018
2016TimeInfo.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
2017 CAP & CONT FA.PDF Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
2017 Overtime Report by Reason and Employee.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018
2017timeinfo Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
2018 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/12/2018
COMP 33 INVENT.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
COMP INVENT.PDF Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
FA OFM '17 CAP 2 – Copy.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
FA OFM '17 CAP 2.pdf Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
FA OFM '17 CAPITAL.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
FA OFM '17 CONTROLLED.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 130 –
Data received Subject Date
FA OFM '17 RESEARCH.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/12/2018
GRANT 2017 A.PDF Financial Data 7/12/2018
GRANT 2017 B PG 1.pdf Financial Data 7/12/2018
GRANT 2017 B PG 2.pdf Financial Data 7/12/2018
Length of Stay Information Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018
Medical Information 2016 to May 2018.xlsx Jail Operations Data 7/12/2018
OFM Sheriff Overtime Analysis .xlsx Financial Data 7/12/2018
Salary Report 7-1-18.xls Financial Data 7/12/2018
SpecDep 2017 YTD.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/13/2018
SpecDep OT 2017 YTD.XLS Financial Data 7/13/2018
Warrants 2017 YTD.XLSX Office Operations Data 7/13/2018
2017 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/16/2018
2016 Revenue Report Financial Data 7/16/2018
General Ledger Reports 2015-2018 YTD.xlsx Financial Data 7/17/2018
07.16.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/16/2018
07.19.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/19/2018
Leave Date Roster Office Operations Data 7/26/2018
2017 Budget Introduced Financial Data 7/27/2018
Wagon Runs Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018
5-22-17 Jail Staffing to Sycamore_SA edits Financial Data 7/27/2018
Transportation Chargebacks 2017 Financial Data 7/27/2018
Jail Staffing Report July 18 2015 Rod Miller Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018
Smartview Proposal 6-13-18 Financial Data 7/27/2018
2015 Year End Report Office Operations Data 8/1/2018
2015 Year End Report Office Operations Data 8/1/2018
2017 JED Yearend Report1.1 Office Operations Data 8/1/2018
SOP-Process Office Operations Data 7/26/2018
SOP-process Clerk Office Operations Data 7/26/2018
SOP-Warrants Office Operations Data 7/26/2018
DAILY template Office Operations Data 7/26/2018
07.20.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/20/2018
07.23.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/23/2018
07.24.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/24/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 131 –
Data received Subject Date
07.25.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/25/2018
07.26.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/26/2018
07.27.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/27/2018
07.31.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 7/31/2018
08.01.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/1/2018
Criminal Division Information 8-2-18 Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
2017 Fleet Information.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
2017 January through June Fleet invoices.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
January through June 2016.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
January through June 2018 Fleet Invoices.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
July through December 2016 Fleet Information.msg Office Operations Data 8/2/2018
08.02.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/2/2018
MCSO Fleet Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
MCSD FLEET POLICY Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
08.03.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/3/2018
08.06.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/6/2018
08.07.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/7/2018
08.09.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/9/2018
08.13.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/13/2018
08.14.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/14/2018
08.15.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/15/2018
08.16.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/16/2018
08.17.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/17/2018
2015_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
2016_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
2017_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
Data Headers Office Operations Data 8/15/2018
08.20.2018 Inmate Count.pdf Jail Operations Data 8/20/2018
MCSO Bookings 2015-current Jail Operations Data 8/22/2018
Staffing 2008 2017 Office Operations Data 8/22/2018
Budget presentations 2010-2016 Office Operations Data 8/22/2018
ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF FEBRUARY 4, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 132 –
Data received Subject Date
ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF MARCH 15, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF APRIL 29, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
ACCT NUMBERS OPEN AS OF MAY 16, 2016.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
VACANT SOTS AS OF JUNE 6 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
open slots july 21 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
open slots october 5 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
open slots oct 20 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
open slots nov 23 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
open slots jan 5 2016.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots as of 02-10-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots as of 03-23-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots effect 04-24-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots effect 06-07-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots effect 8-2-17.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
VACANT SLOTS 08-29-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots for 11-07-2017.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots for 01-04-2018.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
vacant slots as of 02-13-2018.xls Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
Vacancies 4-9-2018.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
Vacancies 5-23-2018.xlsx Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
VACANT REPORT 6-25-2018 Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
Vacant Positions 08-16-2018 Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
Trans_Runs_2015_YTD.csv Office Operations Data 10/31/2018
Updates to GL Information Financial Data 11/29/2018
Appendix D: Interview and observation tracker
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 134 –
Meeting/observations Location Attendees Date
MCSO soft kick-off meeting Conference call Hope Tribble 6/15/2018
Barbara Lawrence
Col. Dezelan
David Hortemiller
Jail 1 Tour 40 South Alabama Street Col. Dezelan 6/26/2018
Barbara Lawrence
Lieutenant
Criminal Division Leadership
Work Group
40 South Alabama Street L/C Forestal and
leadership
6/27/2018
Judicial Enforcement
Leadership Work Group
City-County Building/200 E
Washington Street
L/C Gigerich and
leadership
6/27/2018
MCSO Jail Intake and Arrestee
Processing Tour
200 E Washington St Major Hamblen 6/27/2018
Eskenazi Health Tour 720 Eskenazi Avenue Chuck Ford 6/28/2018
Col. Dezelan
MCSO Communications
Division Tour
Communications Division Commander 7/10/2018
Comms. Manager x 2
Arrestee Transportation
Observation
City-County Building/200 E
Washington Street
Deputy 7/10/2018
Jail Operations Work Group 40 South Alabama Street 2 x Sergeant 7/11/2018
5 x Deputy
MCSO Leadership Team Work
Group
40 South Alabama Street Col. Dezelan 7/12/2018
Kevin Murray
Barbara Lawrence
Jail Commander Meeting 40 South Alabama Street L/C Martin 7/12/2018
MCSO assessment kick-off
meeting and 30 day update
City-County Building/200 E
Washington Street
Hope Tribble 7/12/2018
Barry Logan
Barbara Lawrence
Col. Louis Dezelan
Tim Moriarty
Bart Brown
Fady Qaddoura
David Hortemiller
Jail 1 observation 40 South Alabama Street Major Hamblen 7/24/2018
Sergeant
MCSO Assessment Final Report
– 135 –
Meeting/observations Location Attendees Date
Deputies
Intake Processing Observation City-County Building/200 E
Washington Street
Major Hamblen 7/25/2018
Criminal Division Criminal
Warrants Work Group
40 South Alabama Street Lieutenant 7/25/2018
3 x Sergeant
4 x Deputy
Criminal Division Sex Offender
Work Group
40 South Alabama Street Lieutenant 7/25/2018
Sergeant
4 x Deputy
Judicial Enforcement Civil
Warrants Work Group
City-County Building/200 E
Washington Street
Sergeant x 2 7/26/2018
Corporal x 2
MCSO assessment 60 day
update
Conference call Barry Logan
Barbara Lawrence
Col. Louis Dezelan
Hope Tribble
Tim Moriarty
Fady Quaddoura
8/16/2018
Contact us
Ian McPherson
Principal, Justice & Security
Advisory
Bill Zizic
Managing Director, Justice &
Security Advisory
Brendan Davis
Director, Justice & Security
Advisory
www.kpmg.com
Insert Disclaimers
© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG
International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. NDPPS 800056
The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
kpmg.com/socialmedia