Morris County Sheriff's Office and Morris County Parks Police Partial Consolidation Feasibility...

7/28/2019 Morris County Sheriff's Office and Morris County Parks Police Partial Consolidation Feasibility Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morris-county-sheriffs-office-and-morris-county-parks-police-partial-consolidation 1/38

MORRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

AND

MORRIS COUNTY PARKS POLICE

PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

March 2013

The Police Executive Research Forum

1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20036



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................3

CURRENT CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 4

MORRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE....................................................................................4

MORRIS COUNTY PARK POLICE.........................................................................................16

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 23

LABOR ISSUES...................................................................................................................23

PAY AND BENEFITS............................................................................................................24

OPERATIONAL ISSUES........................................................................................................25

FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................26

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN..................................................................................................26

STAFFING AND COST OF A CONSOLIDATED DEPARTMENT...................................................27

COST COMPARISON WITH CURRENT CONTEXT....................................................................28

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS....................................................................................................29

COST.................................................................................................................................31REDUCTION OF DUPLICATION OF SERVICES........................................................................31

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY............................................................................................31

FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................31

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 32

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 32



Morris County, NJPolice Consolidation Feasibility Study

Introduction

Morris County, New Jersey has retained the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to

study the feasibility of consolidating the Morris County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Special

Service Division into the Morris County Park Police (MCPP). The intent of theassessment is to provide Morris County officials with sufficient data to determine

whether such a consolidation is feasible and/or desirable.1

This report focuses on a wide range of issues that have an impact on the feasibility of

such an endeavor, including operational, organizational, cost, and human resource issues.

These issues in this report are presented as a comparison between the current context and

a concept of operation for a consolidated department. Recommendations will be based

on what is believed to be the best outcome for Morris County, considering all the factorsexamined. The consolidation of law enforcement agencies is a complex processes, and

this report seeks to reduce the complexity to clear, actionable recommendations.

Methodology

To carry out his project, PERF applied a methodology that included interviews with

elected officials and Morris County staff members of the MCSO, and MCPP staff.

Observation of operations, data analysis and a review of internal and internet documents

were also conducted. Secondary interviews and observations were conducted to clarify

and expand on information gathered in the early phases of the study.

The report consists of the following top level sections:

• Current Context

• Morris County Sheriff’s Office

• Morris County Park Police

• Concept of Operations for a Consolidated Department

•Findings

• Conclusions

1 There have been three prior studies regarding the potential consolidation, the first in 1984 and the latest in

2011. The first study recommended only changes to how the park police do business. The 2011 report

recommended merging the Sheriff’s non-mandated duties into the Park Police. This report also contained

an optional approach, where the Park Police were eliminated, and their responsibilities were assumed by

the Sheriff. Many issues described in these reports are relevant today and are discussed here.

Police Executive Research Forum

Page 3




Current Context

Current context, sometimes termed as “as-is” or the current environment, describes how

the MCSO Special Service Division and the MCPP currently do business. Current

conditions describe the organizational structure of the agencies, budgets, operational

strategies and human resources practices. This information will be presented for each

Department, to include both overview and detail level information. A description of the

Morris County Sheriff’s Office follows.

Morris County Sheriff’s Office

The Morris County Sheriffs Office provides courthouse security, transports inmates

admitted or sentenced to other county or state institutions, serves process papers and

domestic violence temporary restraining orders, and executes foreclosures. These duties

are the constitutional responsibilities of the elected Sheriff.

In addition to the constitutional responsibilities, the Sheriffs Office operates a number of

specialized units that are part of the Special Services Division. The following diagram

depicts the 2013 table of organization for the Special Services Division.

Since Morris County is made up of 39 incorporated areas that provide for their own

police services, The MCSO has no road patrol duties, and County elected officials have

been reluctant to expand the Sheriff’s responsibilities to include patrol duties. The

Special Services Division provides support and augments municipal, county, state, and

federal law enforcement agencies. Any of these entities may call for the services of the

Special Services Division. There is no triaging or qualifying criterion for these requests,

thus, most of the Special Services Division workload is driven by requests made by

outside agencies.


Page 4




The units that make up the Special Services Division include a crime scene unit, forensic

and photo labs, K-9 unit, bomb squad, an emergency response team and evidence unit.

Each of these units is described below.

Forensic/Photo Labs

The forensic and photo labs provide evidence processing for local, county, state, and

federal law enforcement agencies operating within Morris County. Some of the many

services it provides include developing and printing photographic film, video

enhancement and duplicating, fingerprint development and comparison, ballistics, tool

mark comparison, handwriting analysis and serial number restoration. The

forensics/photo lab unit operates in an older facility; however, their equipment, tools and

techniques are state of the art. A new facility for the forensics and photo lab is being

constructed at this time.

Emergency Services - K-9Unit/Bomb Squad

This unit is a specialized team of sheriff’s officers who use highly trained dogs to

perform services such as search and rescue operations, narcotics and arson detection and

fugitive tracking. At present, there are 8 handlers working in the K9 unit, with

responsibility for 17 canines. Each handler handles more than one canine, as some of the

canines are trained for specific conditions. Members of the unit work either 8AM to 4

PM or 8PM to 3AM Monday through Friday. The unit is subject to call out when the

need arises. When there is no activity requiring their special service, members of the unit

conduct training and other activities supporting the operation. The canine unit works out

of an older, stand-alone facility that includes both office space and kennels.

This unit also responds to explosive emergencies for purposes of bomb detection and

disposal. The members of the Emergency Services unit make up the core of the

departments emergency response team.

Crime Scene Unit (CIS)

This unit provides personnel for a range of investigative procedures including crime

scene processing, evidence collection and preservation, fingerprint analysis. Personnel

assigned to CIS also operate the department’s crime lab. The unit responds to crime

scenes in Morris County when requested. The Crime Scene Unit works primarily a day

shift, Monday through Friday. The unit is subject to frequent call outs. On major cases,


Page 5




such as homicides, the staff of the CIS unit may be augmented by warrant squad

personnel.

The CIS Unit documents autopsies that are conducted in relation to potential criminal

matters. They will also assist the medical examiner by providing photographicdocumentation in autopsies not related to criminal matters.

Central Avenue Complex

The name of this unit refers to a physical location; however it is the evidence section of

the department, responsible for the management and storage of evidence and property.

The facility was recently remodeled.

Scheduling

The following tables provide the schedules worked by the three units in the Special

Services Division.

Criminal Investigation Section

Assigned Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat

5 Detectives Off 7a – 3p 7a – 3p 7a – 3p 7a – 3p 7a – 3p Off 3 Detectives

1 Sergeant

3 Clerical

2 Photo Techs.

Off 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p Off

1 Detective

1 Sergeant

Off 9a – 5p 9A-5p 9a – 5p 9a – 5p 9a – 5p Off

There is no night time on-duty coverage, creating the need to call officers out for crime

scene responses. The overtime accrued by this unit is discussed later in this report. CIS

used to work a 2nd shift but it was discontinued due to personnel shortages. There are

two newly assigned detectives in the section. Once they are fully trained, CIS will

reschedule two detectives to an afternoon shift.


Page 6




Emergency Services Unit


6 Detectives Off 8a- 3p 8a- 3p 8a- 3p 8a- 3p 8a- 3p Off 2 Detectives Off 8p – 3a 8p – 3a 8p – 3a 8p – 3a 8p – 3a Off

1 Sergeant Off 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a-4p 8a-4p 8a – 4p Off

The Emergency Services unit includes the MCSO canine teams. To comply with FLSA

requirements, officers are given one hour per day to care for their canines at home, thus

the seven hour work day.

ESU officers are subject to callout at all times, however, the assignment of two officers to

a night shift reduces the amount of overtime required for call outs.

Evidence Section


1 Sergeant

1 Officer

Off 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p 8a – 4p Off

The officers’ current union contract states their work week will be five consecutive work

days on the same shift with two consecutive days off.

Budget Overview

The MCSO Special Services Division FY 2013 budget request has been submitted to

County officials, but has not yet been approved. Operational costs for the Special

Services Division are not broken out from the entire MCSO budget. Because the

functions of the Special Service Division are markedly different than the remainder of the

Sheriff’s Office department, estimating their share of the operational budget would not be

accurate.

Personnel Costs2 , 3

The Special Services Division of the MCSO is staffed by 23 sworn and six clerical

personnel. The ranks held by sworn personnel consist of Lieutenant, Sergeant, Detective,

Investigator, and Officer. Civilian personnel carry out supervisory, clerical, and photo

lab responsibilities. Detailed personnel costs for salaries, pension, and overtime are

provided in the following table.

2 Since overtime is included in personnel cost computations, the most current data available is for 2012.3 MCSO Special Services Division personnel have not received pay increases since 2010.


Page 7




2012 Personnel Costs – Special Services Division4

Functional Position Salary Overtime HoursOvertime

Cost Pension CostTotal Cost of

Position

Det/Lieutenant - Legal Services Div. $113,582.00 16 $1,989.39 $27,327.83 $142,899.22

Sergeant - Bomb Commander $107,040.90 130 $10,259.37 $25,754.04$143,054.31

Sergeant - Criminal Investigation Section $93,037.00 307.75 $19,348.02 $22,384.70 $134,769.72

Sergeant - Evidence Section $93,037.00 96.75 $6,197.43 $22,384.70 $121,619.13

Sergeant - Emergency Services Section $105,541.01 124.5 $9,742.85 $25,393.17 $140,677.03

Sergeant - Criminal Investigation Section $47,268.67 0 $0.00 $11,372.84 $58,641.51Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $73,773.01 398 $15,692.26 $17,749.79 $107,215.06Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $62,000.01 488 $17,775.14 $14,917.20 $94,692.35

Emergency Services Section (Detect ive) $67,233.02 534.5 $21,409.12 $16,176.26 $104,818.40Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $87,225.99 55.5 $3,373.33 $20,986.57 $111,585.89Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $62,000.01 495.5 $17,374.40 $14,917.20 $94,291.61

Emergency Services Section (Detect ive) $87,225.99 229.25 $12,752.01 $20,986.57 $120,964.57

Evidence Section (Detective) $95,076.33 11 $710.05 $22,875.36 $118,661.74

Emergency Services Section (Detective) $80,324.00 367 $16,426.49 $19,325.95 $116,076.44Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $73,773.01 709.84 $32,068.63 $17,749.79 $123,591.43

Emergency Services Section (Detective) $62,000.01 685 $26,667.25 $14,917.20 $103,584.46

Emergency Services Section (Detective) $95,076.33 18.25 $995.83 $22,875.36 $118,947.52Criminal Investigation Section(Detective) $62,000.01 325.25 $12,649.83 $14,917.20 $89,567.04

Emergency Services Section $78,824.00 463.25 $21,909.52 $18,965.05 $119,698.57



Criminal Investigation Section $67,233.02 492 $18,137.59 $16,176.26 $101,546.87

Criminal Investigation Section $54,377.99 392.25 $11,781.07 $13,083.34 $79,242.40

Special Services - Supervising Clerical $61,467.18 43 $1,918.44 $6,847.44 $70,233.06

Photo Lab Technician $49,859.56 0 $0.00 $5,554.35 $55,413.91

Photo Lab Technician $34,515.70 3.25 $80.59 $3,845.05 $38,441.34

Criminal Investigation Section - Clerical $26,778.67 0 $0.00 $2,983.14 $29,761.81

Emergency Services - Clerical $26,232.00 78.75 $1,559.09 $2,922.24 $30,713.33

Criminal Investigation Section - Clerical $26,232.13 71.5 $1,372.54 $2,922.26 $30,526.93

TOTALS: $2,009,169.56 7538.09

$316,649.12 $ 454,325.18 $2,780,143.81

Overtime incurred by the Special Services Division is significant, totaling $316,649 in

2012. The Emergency Services Section incurred an average of $15,843 per officer in

overtime. The average per officer overtime amount in the Criminal Investigation Section

was $16,466. Although overtime can be incurred for different reasons, the primary use of

4 Includes partial costs for employees separated during the year.


Page 8




overtime was for off-duty call-outs. Since neither unit provides 24/7 coverage, overtime

must be used to provide typical services to other communities.

When considering a consolidation or merger, the most significant cost reductions occur if

the number of personnel in the consolidated department can be reduced, subsequentlyreducing personnel costs. The personnel costs for the MCSO and MCPP will be used as

a basis for determining if there will be cost savings if a consolidation were to occur.

Workload - CIS

The Criminal Investigation Section (CIS) responds to crime scenes at the request of local

Morris County police agencies to assist with collecting and analyzing evidence that the

local agencies do not usually have the expertise to process. The CIS responds to both

indictable and non-indictable offenses. The table below shows the most frequent types

of crimes responded to by CIS members in the year study period.

Top activities for the Morris County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigations Section

There were 1170 total field responses in 2012.

The crime scene activities carried out by CIS personnel resulted in 38 different types of

evidence related actions. The most frequent are provided in the following table.


Page 9

Activity Type Number

Burglary and Theft 544Death 151

Burglary and Theft – Motor Vehicle 90

Motor Vehicle Accident 53

Fire 35

Recovered Stolen Motor Vehicle 35

Aggravated Assault 33

Sexual Assault 29Theft 25

Search Warrant 25

Robbery 24

Attempted Burglary and Theft 13

Motor Vehicle Theft 10




MCSO Crime Scene Actions by Type

Crime Scene Action Number

AFIS 6610

Print Comparisons 2082Evidence Comparison 10

Firearms Analysis 74Handwriting Analysis 26

Photo Line-Ups 265Crime Scene Process 750

Video Tapes 422

According to information supplied by the Sheriff’s Office CIS one sergeant and eight

members are allotted to CIS response. As described above, they work week days on

eight hour shifts, with some unit members working a shift from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and other

coming in an hour later to work from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The following chart shows the

distribution by hour of the day and day of the week of CIS field responses. Shaded areas

represent times when the response is normally by on-duty officers.


Page 10




MCSO CIS FIELD RESPONSES – July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012

Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday00 4 6 4 9 7 1 3

01 11 5 4 5 1 2 4

02 4 5 12 2 4 1 203 6 2 3 1 9 1 8

04 8 7 2 4 5 1 4

05 3 3 4 2 3 4 2

06 6 10 8 19 6 12 5

07 6 11 15 10 11 13 8

08 12 11 9 16 18 22 16

09 11 28 7 23 9 14 8

10 13 11 15 17 10 17 8

11 12 8 25 20 11 10 8

12 8 10 11 14 19 22 16

13 6 21 18 15 19 16 10

14 9 21 13 18 14 9 915 7 21 15 16 11 20 13

16 3 15 15 17 13 19 14

17 11 10 9 12 6 18 10

18 5 11 8 12 12 14 2

19 4 5 13 13 10 14 4

20 3 7 9 12 9 11 8

21 8 6 17 12 7 17 6

22 10 3 10 6 8 23 9

23 1 12 11 12 13 11 6

Of the total of 1,674 responses 41% occurred during CIS on-duty time. The next tableshows the number of field responses by hour of the day for the year period.


Page 11




Field responses for the

Criminal Investigations

Section are highest at 0800,0900, 1200, 1300 and 1500

hours. Lowest points are early

mornings from midnight

through 0500.

The next chart shows the average number of field response per day of the week for the

year’s data.

Fridays have the highest average field

responses (5.6) followed by Wednesday at

5.5.

CIS members averaged approximately 72

hours per week on field responses, 28 hours

while on duty and 43 while off duty. Field

responses accounted for approximately 12.5% of the on-duty time of CIS members.

In addition to field response CIS officers perform analytical and technical work in the

crime lab. They carried out actions in 38 functional areas during 2012. The highest

levels of activity on included the following.

Activity Number

Case Photography 1369Evidence Collected 1945Investigation Report 1206Latent Prints Collected 1963Latent Prints Evaluated 2136

Prints Compared 1374Suspect Prints 3288Elimination Comparison 1478Suspect Comparison 8712

Workload - Emergency Services Unit


Page 12

Number of CIS Field Response by Hour -- July 1

2011 - June 30, 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2

CIS Field Responses -- Daily Average July 1, 2011- June 30, 2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat




According to the MCSO, the work of ESU has been evolving. ESU is the first

responding unit to many critical incidents in Morris County. Their work has expanded in

all three facets of ESU, the K-9 Unit, Bomb Squad; and Search and Rescue Team. Their

flexibility enables them to readily respond to critical incidents or short notice details.

ESU specializes in response to a problem where they provide a rapid stabilizing force.

In addition, members of the ESU may assist local agencies with traffic enforcement, with

aggressive driving and with DUI enforcement checkpoints.

At present, there are eight handlers working in the K9 unit, with responsibility for 17

canines. Each handler may have more than one canine, as some of the canines are trained

for specific conditions. As described earlier, members of the unit work a seven hour

shift5 either 8AM to 3 PM or 8PM to 3AM Monday through Friday. The unit is subject to

call out when the need arises. The canine handlers are classified as investigators in thedepartment’s rank structure. When there is no activity requiring their special service,

member of the unit conduct training.

ESU members recorded 1,133 activities for the year from July 1, 2011 through June 30,

2012. The following table shows the most frequent recorded activities.

Top activities for the Morris County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Unit

Activity Number

K9 Patrol Tracking6 570Narcotics Search 153

K9 Missing Person Track 97

Assist Other Agency 68

Motor Vehicle Check or Stop 47

These five activities account for 83% of all activities. K9 Patrol Tracking accounts for

50% of all recorded activities. The following table shows the distribution of ESU

activities for the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Shaded areas represent

the on-duty times for ESU officers.

5 Canine officers are allotted one hour per day to care for their animals.6 Canine patrol tracking consists of such activities as track scenting, wind scenting, and field search,

building search, bite and bark. The ESU responds to all requests for the canine unit, and also schedules

enforcement activities with other law enforcement agencies.


Page 13




ESU Field Activities – Distribution by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week

Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

00 2 6 7 6 6 4 801 2 5 2 3 2 6 7

02 6 1 5 5 2 8 8

03 3 5 2 2 6 3 204 6 7 1 2 2 9

05 6 3 8 1 5

06 1 1 7 8 4 2

07 2 8 14 7 3

08 2 5 6 5 4 17

09 4 2 8 11 8 18 1

10 1 16 17 14 9 2 3

11 5 1 3 5 9 9 2

12 1 9 15 24 5 14

13 3 20 6 11 17 8 6

14 2 11 23 10 20 9 3

15 3 12 15 17 12 15 416 5 8 10 2 10 9 8

17 3 7 6 8 4 15 7

18 6 3 4 5 4 10 4

19 2 9 6 5 10 9 6

20 5 8 7 5 8 5 6

21 14 4 14 10 8 14 4

22 3 8 8 12 12 8 16

23 5 6 11 7 16 6 5

Of the 1,133 recorded activities, 616, or 54%, took place during the on-duty hours of the

ESU. Thursday and Friday had the highest average activities per day at 3.8. Tuesdaywas next highest with an average of 2.7 recorded activities per day. The following chart

shows the frequency of ESU activities by hour.

The most frequent

time for ESU activities

was during the

afternoon. A second

high point was at 2100

and 2200. Recordedactivities averaged

approximately 40

hours per week. An

average of 17.3 hours

was consumed during


Page 14

ESU Recorded Activities per Hour -- July 1, 2011 -

June 30, 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23




on-duty time. This represents 9% of the available on-duty time. The number of activities

for the year averaged just over three per day.

The Emergency Services Unit is engaged in a number of activities when they are not

responding to calls or engaging in other field activities. They include, but are not limitedto:

• Training with the various canines both individually and as a team.

• Conducting training related to their bomb squad responsibilities.

• Conducting weapons and tactics training to prepare for response to hostage rescue

and active shooter situations.

• Maintaining equipment.

• Carry out reporting and record keeping functions.

ESU training records for 2012 indicated that the unit participated in three types of

training. The following table provides the type of training and number of training hours

expended in 2012.

Type of Training Administrative Training K-9 Training Specialized Training

Hours of Training 526 3439 631

As stated earlier, ESU members work seven hours a day for five straight days. Not all

officers will come to work each day due to vacations, illness, court appearances and other

leave time. Units similar to the ESU typically have an absentee rate of 30%. Applyingthis rate to the scheduled time results in a weekly number of hours for the unit of 196,

these projects to 10,192 per year.

The total amount of recorded training time is 4,596, which is 45% of the ESU on-duty

time. Administrative training accounts for 5% of the time, K-9 training accounts for 34%

and specialized training accounts for 6% of the total unit time.


Page 15




Morris County Park Police

The Morris County Park Commission established the Morris County Park Police (MCPP)

in 1962. New Jersey Statutes give counties the authority to create police divisions to

provide for the security of the parks and other recreational facilities. The Park Police aregoverned by a Park Commission. The Commission is appointed by County Freeholders

The primary mission of the Park Police is to provide law enforcement services in Morris

County Parks. The Park Police are authorized to enforce laws throughout Morris County

and the State of New Jersey. The Park Police may provide assistance and specialized

services to other agencies. The Morris County Park Police organizational design is

shown below.


Page 16




The MCPP is a full service police department, but due to the unique nature of their duties,

the majority of their work is proactive and self-generated.

The MCPP carries out the following functions:

• Patrol (vehicle, mounted, motorcycle, bicycle, and ATV)

• Traffic enforcement

• Investigations

• Security services

• Crowd control

• Search and Rescue

• Community outreach activities

The department maintains a cadre of instructors to certify officers in the variousspecialties they perform.

Budget Overview

The MCPP FY 2013 budget request has been submitted, but not yet approved.

Operational costs for the MCPP are included in the Park Commission budget. 2012

personnel costs are detailed below.

Personnel Costs

Sworn members of the MCPP are unionized, but do not fall under the civil service

provisions of the State of New Jersey.

The MCPP has an authorized staff of 30 sworn and 1 civilian position. Ranks associated

with sworn personnel include Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Detective/Patrol and

Patrol Officer. The Department was authorized 34 sworn officers in 2008. The

authorized strength has been incrementally reduced since 2008. No officers are assigned

full-time to specialty patrol, such as the mounted patrol. Specialty patrols only occur

when officers are available.

The majority of costs associated with the MCPP are related to personnel. Personnel cost

include salary, overtime, insurance benefits, and pension costs. 2012 salary, overtime,

and pension costs are presented in the following table.


Page 17




Detailed 2012 Personnel Costs – Morris County Park Police7

Functional PositionSalary Overtime

HoursOvertime

Cost8

PensionCost

Total Cost of Position

Chief $120,359.20 0 $0.00 $28,958.42 $149,317.62

Chief Retired $110,546.25 0 $0.00 $26,597.43 $137,143.68

Captain - Administration $117,015.37 85 $5,620.33 $28,153.90 $150,789.60

Lieutenant - Administration $114,509.60 119 $8,281.84 $27,551.01 $150,342.45

Lt. Ret.- Administration $133,687.70 90 $5,183.36 $32,165.26 $171,036.32

Sgt. - Ret.Patrol Supervisor $69,640.67 7 $478.35 $16,755.55 $86,874.57

Sgt. - Patrol Supervisor $106,075.14 20 -$586.61 $25,521.68 $131,010.21

Sgt. - Patrol Supervisor $110,165.34 74 $3,542.12 $26,505.78 $140,213.24

Sgt. - Patrol/Det Supervisor $105,323.50 246 $13,349.70 $25,340.83 $144,014.03




Patrol $97,579.84 76 $2,896.88 $23,477.71 $123,954.43

Patrol $97,668.08 186 $7,538.22 $23,498.94 $128,705.24

Patrol $92,876.07 95 $1,696.07 $22,345.98 $116,918.12

Patrol/Mounted $91,650.66 74 $3,106.23 $22,051.15 $116,808.04

Patrol $93,467.70 120 $854.56 $22,488.33 $116,810.59

Patrol $94,171.90 133 $4,411.91 $22,657.76 $121,241.57

Patrol $88,078.07 81 $2,645.02 $21,191.58 $111,914.67

Detective/Patrol $78,939.25 43 $655.19 $18,992.78 $98,587.22

Detective/Patrol $66,634.53 135 $3,516.94 $16,032.27 $86,183.74

Patrol $59,611.03 34 $423.71 $14,342.41 $74,377.15

Patrol $60,914.87 65 -$861.88 $14,656.12 $74,709.11

Patrol/Mounted $62,200.12 121 $3,145.63 $14,965.35 $80,311.10

Patrol/Mounted $57,972.17 11 -$1,875.53 $ 13,948.10 $70,044.74

Patrol $58,245.76 81 $2,932.75 $14,013.93 $75,192.44

Patrol $54,006.37 60 -$504.23 $12,993.93 $66,496.07

Patrol $41,762.56 98 -$1,673.42 $ 10,048.07 $50,137.21

Patrol $40,803.92 72 $1,633.60 $9,817.42 $52,254.94

Patrol $16,686.53 0 $0.00 $4,014.78 $20,701.31

Admin. Assistant $42,283.48 0 $0.00 $10,173.41 $52,456.89

Total $2,568,492.66 2600 $86,915.22 $617,979.33 $3,273,387.21

While salary and pension costs are set for the year, overtime cost vary based on a number

of factors. They include, but are not limited to minimum staffing requirements, special

events, court time, unanticipated workload, and supervisory staffing needs.

Proportionately, the bulk of the overtime in the MCPP is accrued by supervisory andmanagement personnel.

7 Includes partial costs for employees separated during the year.8 Negative overtime costs are the result of revenues from vendor overtime or outside detail overtime

exceeding the total overtime cost on an individual officer basis.


Page 18




The average per-officer overtime cost in the MCPP is approximately $3,000 annually.

The average per officer overtime cost in the MCSO Special Services Division is $13,750.

The substantial difference in overtime can be attributed to the difference in how many

hours are expended providing services while the officers are on duty, versus the number

of hours expended providing services on overtime.

When considering a consolidation or merger, the most significant cost reductions occur if

the number of personnel in the consolidated department can be reduced, subsequently

reducing personnel costs. The combined personnel costs for the MCSO and MCPP will

be used as a basis for determining if there will be any cost savings if a consolidation were

to occur.

Scheduling

Patrol officers, detectives and sergeants work a 5 on 5 off schedule working a 10.75 hour

work day. Patrol personnel are divided into four squads, two on each shift. When one

squad on the shift is working, the other is off. The Lieutenant works an 8 hour shift,

generally Monday through Friday.

Minimum patrol staffing is two officers on duty. One officer is assigned north of Route

10, and the other is assigned south of Route 10. A supervisor (Sergeant) is on duty 95%

of the time.

Workload

PERF requested a year of records for MCPP from the county’s computer aided dispatch

(CAD) system. In order to gauge the level of work for each unit, a record for each officer

on each event was requested. Some events require multiple units; others can be handled

by a single officer. The data that was supplied to PERF was for the 12 month period

from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

The following table shows the most frequently occurring events recorded for the Morris

County Parks Police. There were a total of 26,922 unit records for 26,018 different

events. This indicates that multiple units are rarely assigned to activities performed by

MCPP officers.


Page 19




Most Frequent Activities for the Morris County Parks Police July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012

Event Type Number

Detail Check Park/Golf Course 17239

Motor Vehicle Check or Stop 1241 Administrative Detail9 1228

Vehicle Maintenance10 973

Escort11 899

Assist Other Agency 462

Training 373

Check Area12 251

Crowd Control 227

Alarm Commercial 162

These ten activities account for 86% of all officer activities recorded for the MCPP. The

single dominant activity is “Detail Check Park/Golf Course” which accounted for 66% of all MCPP patrol activity during the year. This activity fits the core mission of the Parks

Police since they exist to ensure that Morris County residents can use their parks under

safe and secure conditions.

These checks occur year round, approximately 48% occur from October through March

and 52% from April through September. Although the parks are open only from dawn to

dusk, there is still a need to patrol them after dark to ensure that no one is there in

violation of closing times and that the parks are not being used for illegal activities.

The adjacent chartshows the number of

checks performed by

9 A generalized category that encompasses everything from delivering summonses,

complaints and paperwork to various courts to finishing reports, to completing

various administrative tasks that the officers may be assigned by a supervisor.10 Time recorded for vehicle maintenance refers to the time recorded for the officers

to complete their detailed patrol car check that takes place on a regular basis.11 A coding the department uses when officers “escort” the county park golf course

daily monies to the bank and make the deposit for the park commission. The code

may also be used if MCPP officers provide a funeral escort or transport a victim or

someone in need of assistance in a patrol car. These generally do not result in

overtime.12 Each county park area is built into the CAD system as “patrol checks”. When an

officer is on patrol in any county park area, the officer starts the patrol event in the

CAD and when the officer is done the officer closes the event in the CAD. This system

provide accurate and time stamped information regarding patrol activities in the

County Parks.


Page 20

MCPP Park and Golf Course Checks By Hour

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

Hour

N u m b e r o f C h e c k s




hour. The chart reflects the patrol schedule which deploys patrol officers for 20 to 21

hours a day depending on the season, hence the very low frequency of checks from 2 a.m.

to 6 a.m. One peak time for checks is at 8 a.m. as officers begin dayshift. Checks then

increase in the afternoon with high points in the early evening at 7 p.m., 8 p.m. and 9

p.m. For the year, the number of recorded activities averages 3.7 per hour.

The next chart shows the distribution of checks by day of the week.

Checks average about 80 per day

on Saturday and then drop to 71 to

73 other days. This reflects the

days of the greatest use of thecounty’s parks and golf courses.

The second most frequent activity

recorded for Parks Police patrol

officers is “Motor Vehicle Stops

and Checks.” During the period

1241 occurred. Approximately60% occurred inside the parks.

The adjacent chart shows the

distribution of these stops and

checks by hour of the day. It

should be noted that from 0200 through 0600 hours MCPP patrol officers are not

scheduled to work. Motor vehicle stops and checks increase in the evenings after the

parks close.

As described earlier, MCPP patrol officers work five days consecutive days for 10.75

hours, followed by five straight days off. There are two shifts per day. The shift start

and end times vary seasonally but there is usually some over lap during the late

afternoon. Currently 17 officers are assigned to the patrol function.


Page 21

MCPP Park and Golf Course Checks -- Daily

Average

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

MCPP Motor Vehicle Stops and Checks by Hour:

Inside and Outside the Parks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Hour of the Day

N u m b e r o f

S t o p s / C h e

c k s

Inside

Outside




On most shifts, four officers are scheduled although all four will seldom be present due to

vacation, sick leave and other leave usage. When absences are factored in a show-up rate

typical for similar agencies is 75%. This means that of those scheduled to work any

given shift, about 75% of the personnel will be at work. Therefore the average number of

officers at work will be three per shift. The department’s informal minimum staffingrequirement of two officers and one supervisor per shift allows for one officer to work in

the northern part of the county and a second in the southern part. Back-up can be

provided by the other MCPP officer, by the supervisor or by a local department.

Most of the work performed by MCPP patrol officers is self-initiated. Officers

themselves determine when to perform a park or golf course check and when to stop or

check a motor vehicle. These two activities account for 68.6% of the recorded patrol

activities. Responding to outside requests to assist another agency, to check an area or to

respond to an alarm account for 3.2% of MCPP patrol activities.

These data indicate that ensuring that the Morris County Parks are safe and secure is

performed primarily by the self-initiated patrol activities of MCPP patrol officers. Only

approximately 1% of the activities recorded deal with criminal complaints.


Page 22




Concept of Operations

The feasibility of merging the MCSO Special Services Division into the MCPP should be

determined by the examination of a number of issues. Those issues include, but are not

limited to:

• Labor issues

• Pay and benefits

• Operational Issues

• Facilities issues.

• Staffing

• Potential cost reductions

Each of these components of feasibility is discussed next.

Labor Issues

All sworn personnel in the MCSO fall under the state’s civil service system. MCPP

sworn personnel do not. In order for the MCSO Special Services Division to be merged

into the MCPP, MCSO Special Services Division employees would have to be laid-off or

terminated from the MCSO and then rehired by the MCPP.

New Jersey civil service regulations 4A:8-1.1 state that “An appointing authority mayinstitute layoff actions for economy, efficiency or other related reasons.” The Morris

County Sheriff, as the appointing authority for sheriff’s officers, would probably have to

declare any layoff.

When a layoff is declared and approved by the New Jersey Civil Service Commission,

civil service regulations require that layoffs occur on a “last in, first out” basis. The

newest employees in the Sheriff’s Office would be laid off first. Based on current

seniority conditions in the Sheriff’s Office, court employees would make up the largest

group of employees to be laid off. Because of their seniority CSI and ESU employees

would not likely be subject to the lay-offs, but would remain with the Sheriff, although

no longer providing their specialized services because, in order to meet court staffing

requirements, they would most likely be assigned to work in the courts.


Page 23




Civil service regulations encourage local jurisdictions to consider voluntary alternatives

to layoff. A previously considered option involved offering Sheriff’s officers a voluntary

transfer to the MCPP. Such a transfer would require that Sheriff’s employees give up

their civil service positions, although they could continue to operate in their area of

expertise in the MCPP. Such a transfer would have to be voluntary. It is unknown howmany CIS and ESU members would move from the MCSO to the MCPP. The consensus

among those interviewed was that few would make the change.

Unless virtually all of the current CIS and ESU members moved to the MCPP, there

would be a significant loss in expertise in these specialty areas. Considerable time and

expense for the extensive training needed would be required to develop high quality

canine handlers and crime scene and crime lab personnel. Although some positions

might be filled through lateral entry by those with suitable training, there would still be

some period of diminished operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Pay and Benefits

The issue of pay and benefits for MCSO employees joining the MCPP would be dictated

by how MCSO personnel were merged into the MCPP. The approach discussed earlier

(the lay-off or termination of MCSO personnel followed by re-hiring by the MCPP)

would likely result in a negotiated agreement where the merged employees would

eventually receive MCPP pay and benefits. Issues such as seniority and where the new

employees would start in MCPP pay scales would require resolution before exact salary

costs can be identified. For the purposes of analysis and comparison, the average pay, byrank, between the two departments is presented in the following table.

Rank MCSO13 MCPP14

Lieutenant $113,583 $115,000Sergeant 89,184 $101,196Detective/Investigator $75,600 n/a15

Officer $55,257 $72,73316

Averaging existing actual wages result in pay rates that are higher in the MCPP than

they are in the MCSO , but the MCSO and MCPP pay scales reflect very little difference13 2010 Pay rate. No salary increases have occurred since then.14 2012 Pay rate.15 There is a MCPP job classification of detective/patrol. Since the salaries for these positions were within

the range of patrol officer salaries, those positions and their respective salaries were averaged with the

officer salaries.16 The MCPP salary range for officers is from $39,000 to $88,000 as the result of an incremental pay step

program.


Page 24




when top of scale pay rates are considered. In the case of a Lieutenant, the annual

difference is $456. In the case of a Sergeant it is $541. Officer top of scale salaries are

$2274 higher in the Park Police, however, some of the difference is offset by a “detective

differential” received by some MCSO personnel. The differentail is $1500 per year. If

MCSO special services personnel were merged into the MCPP on a person for person basis, it is likely that overall salary costs for the county would be similar, and pension

costs would remain the same.

Operational Issues

Each operational unit that would be involved in the consolidation currently has distinct

operational responsibilities with little overlap. The MCPP is primarily responsible for

patrol of the parks and have county-wide jurisdiction. The CIS and Emergency Services

sections of the MCSO have county wide responsibilities for specialized services. The

consolidation would result in creating a larger department, which overall would includethe same services performed by units in their current organizational placement.

One possible scenario for enhanced service would be to have the ESU members assigned

to the MCPP patrol function. Two canine handlers and their dogs could be assigned to

each of the current patrol squads. This would increase the size of each patrol squad from

four to six. If minimum staffing of each squad included one canine at all times, response

to local county agencies could be accommodated almost around the clock. Issues with

this option include:

• Workload data suggest that the current level of MCPP patrol fits the level of work

needed. The large majority of the work being performed is self-initiated not

responding to citizen generated calls for service. The low level of calls about

crime in the parks suggests that adequate patrolling is being provided. Increasing

the size of each squad by adding two canine officers to each is not warranted in

light of the workload data.

• If canine handler positions were substituted for MCPP patrol officer positions to

achieve the current level of squad staffing, coverage gaps could well occur. If a

canine officer were sent on a call to a local agency that needed the skills of the

dog, staffing in the parks would be decreased during his absence. Some calls

require multiple hours of canine expertise.

• When only one canine officer was on duty, many calls would require a call out

since the workload data indicate 60% of all canine responses involved two or

more dogs.


Page 25




• Some canine responses might be delayed so the canine officer can get the

appropriate dog. Different dogs are trained for different tasks including search

and rescue, patrol, bomb and explosive discovery, and drug detection. If the

officer is patrolling with a patrol dog yet a drug dog is needed the officer would

have to go to the kennel to get the right dog. Currently most canine responses aredirectly from the kennel enabling the handler to bring the right dog from the

outset.

• Although the time spent in K9 training might be reduced in keeping with national

standards, there is still a substantial need for on-going dog training. This

requirement along with the hour per day needed for maintaining the animal will

create frequent absences from duty by canine officers.

FacilitiesThe MCPP facility is small and outdated. It could not accommodate any additional

personnel or equipment. The county is building a new facility to house the MCSO crime

lab. Included in the facility is space for the county communications center, data center,

and emergency operations center. The later functions are not under the supervision of the

MCSO. In addition, the Sheriff’s administrative offices and the emergency services

facilities are in different locations.

Organizational Design

The organizational design of a police agency defines function, workflow, lines of

communication, and workflow. If MCSO Special Services and MCPP were to

consolidate, the following table of organization is recommended. The table incorporates

the MCSO Special Services sections according to their current operational functions.

MCPP patrol squad size is not increased based on the discussion above.


Page 26




This approach adopts a two division organization, with operations and administration

functionally separate.

Staffing and Cost of a Consolidated Department

The previous section of this report discussed the proposed organizational design for a

consolidated department. The organizational design is important in describing the

functional responsibilities and workflow in the department. The number of personnel

assigned to each function determines how much it will cost to operate the department. A

primary consideration in determining whether a consolidation is feasible is the potential

for cost reductions as compared to the current environment.

The following table describes the proposed cost and staffing model for a consolidated

department. It provides the anticipated cost associated with merging the two entities and

retaining all existing positions. Since the proposed consolidation would be the result of

merging the MCSO Special Services Division into the MCPP, salary amounts are derived

from averaged salary costs, by rank, in the Morris County Park Police.

Consolidated Department Staffing and Personnel Costs


Page 27




Functional PositionNumber of Positions

EstimatedSalary

TotalSalary

PensionCost

Total PersonnelCost

Department Head 1 $120,359 $120,359 $28,958 $149,317

Administration 1 $117,015 $117,015 $28,154 $145,169

Administration 1 $114,509 $114,509 $27,551 $142,060

Special Operations 1 $114,609 $114,609 $27,575 $142,184

Patrol Supervisor 6 $101,196 $607,176 $146,087 $753,263

Evidence Supervisor 1 $101,196 $101,196 $24,348 $125,544

Bomb Commander 1 $101,196 $101,196 $24,348 $125,544

Criminal Investigation 1 $101,196 $101,196 $24,348 $125,544

Emergency Services 1 $101,196 $101,196 $24,348 $125,544

Crime Lab 1 $101,196 $101,196 $24,348 $125,544

ESU 5 $75,642 $378,210 $90,997 $469,207

CIS 6 $75,642 $453,852 $109,197 $563,049

Investigations/Patrol 2 $72,733 $145,466 $34,999 $180,465

Patrol 16 $72,733 $1,163,728 $279,993 $1,443,721

ESU 3 $72,733 $218,199 $52,499 $270,698

CIS 2 $72,733 $145,466 $34,999 $180,465

Evidence 1 $72,733 $72,733 $17,500 $90,233

Admin. Assistant 1 $42,283 $42,283 $10,173 $52,456

Supervising Clerical 1 $61,467 $61,467 $14,789 $76,256

Photo Lab Technician 2 $42,283 $84,567 $20,347 $104,914

CIS Clerical 2 $27,000 $54,000 $12,992 $66,992

ESU Clerical 1 $27,000 $27,000 $6,496 $33,496

Totals 57 $1,788,650 $4,426,619 $1,065,045 $5,491,663

Overtime $403,654.00

Grand Total $5,895,317.48

It is estimated that overtime costs in the consolidated organization would not change

from the combined overtime total of the two departments. Subsequently, overtime costs

incurred by the departments in 2012 are added to the cost model for the consolidated

department.

Cost Comparison with Current Context

The following table describes the current combined personnel costs of the MCSO

Special Services Division and the MCPP compared to an estimated consolidated cost.

Current Personnel Costs Compared to Consolidated Costs

2012 Combined

Personnel Cost17

Consolidated

Personnel Cost Difference


Page 28




Personnel Costs $6,053,531 $5,895,317 -$158,213

Personnel costs in the consolidated department would be $158,213 less than the

combined 2012 personnel costs of the two agencies.

This model was based on a position by position merger of the MCSO Special Services

Division and the MCPP, The small cost reduction can be attributed to the application of

average MCPP salaries to this model. While it was noted earlier that existing MCPP

salaries are on average higher, the salary scales for the two departments are very similar.

The variation occurs as the result of using actual salaries in the computation of current

costs, and average current salaries in the MCPP as the basis for consolidated cost.

Implementation Costs

In order to consolidate the operations of the MCSO Special Services Division into theMCPP, cost not related to personnel, salary and benefits will be incurred. Since all of the

equipment, vehicles and facilities utilized by the MCSO Special Services Division are

owned by Morris County, it is assumed that there will be no cost to transfer these items to

the MCPP. Consequently, current vehicles, weapons, and other equipment will be

adequate for the consolidated department at start-up. Maintenance and routine

replacement should be managed within the consolidated department’s budget in future

years. Non-standard types of equipment (firearms, radios) should be identified and

scheduled for replacement. During implementation planning, a replacement schedule for

equipment and vehicles should be developed to clarify future costs.

For the purposes of organizational, identity items related to department identity or

“brand” need to be changed at startup. Two cost items should be included in the

consolidation project budget as implementation costs. They include remarking police

vehicles at $1,100 apiece and providing new officer uniforms and equipment at $2,000

apiece.18 The operational budget for the MCPP will need to increase to accommodate the

need for new supplies and maintain new equipment.

Beyond the cost of equipment and operational supplies, significant hours will beexpended by police officials and other county officials in preparing for the consolidation,

17 This baseline is based on 2010 MCSO personnel costs and 2013 MCPP personnel costs. Adjusting

MCSO personnel costs to 2013 rates will result in raising the current combined costs while the consolidated

personnel costs would remain the same. Tables showing the respective rates are included in the Appendix.18 These estimates are based on a recent analysis by PERF in Berks County, PA.


Page 29




along with managing operational and administrative changes within the MCPP. Those

tasks included, but are not limited to:

• Developing plans, requesting permissions, and developing documentation to

facilitate the personnel move from MCSO to MCPP.• Clarifying pay and benefit issues

• Negotiating with the respective unions.

• Negotiating with the Civil Service Commission.

• Transferring MCSO employees to MCPP

• Develop a new chain of command in the MCPP.

• Developing new MCPP operating policies in procedures.

• Developing new MCPP work schedules.

• Training new MCPP specialists in their generalist duties.

It is difficult to quantify the cost of the efforts that are described above. As the details of

a consolidation become less uncertain, the effort required to carry out these tasks can be

better defined.

If this project were to move forward, a detailed implementation plan should be developed

by the stakeholders and carried out by a qualified project manager.


Page 30




FindingsThe purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of merging the Special Services

Division of the MCSO into the MCPP. The research has indicated that the consolidation

is feasible, but that there is no compelling reason to merge the organizations. This

conclusion is based on a number of considerations. They are detailed below.

Cost

Limited cost savings will be realized as the result of a consolidation. At the same staffing

levels that exist in the current environment, the cost of the consolidated department is

estimated to be less than the total costs of the two departments by $158,213. This cost

difference is insignificant due to several factors discussed above.

Reduction of Duplication of Services

The law enforcement services provided by the MCPP and MCSO Special Services are

overwhelmingly mutually exclusive. Each provides services that are separate and

distinct.

Organizational Efficiency

The organizational structure recommended here would be efficient in managing the

current functions of the MCPP and the MCSO Special Service Division. It would also

provide a foundation for future growth if the county would decide to develop a county

police department. As the two organizations currently exist, both have desirable

organizational platforms from which to manage their organizations. No significant

benefits would be derived from combining them.

Facilities

No facility currently exists that could accommodate the consolidated police department.

The MCPP is small and outdated, and MCSO facilities are scattered and some are

designed for specific and limited function. Except for the existing MCPP building, none

are designed to support a patrol function.

From an organizational standpoint, it is ideal to operate a law enforcement agency in one

location. Unless a building program were undertaken as part of a consolidation, facilities

would likely same the same as they are now. The need for capital investments to

improve or construct new facilities would remain the same as they are in the current

environment.


Page 31




Conclusion

This analysis reveals no operational effectiveness or cost savings to be gained by

consolidation of the MCSO Special Services Division into the Morris County Park Police

in the near term. By all accounts, the current services provided by the MCSO crime

scene personnel, the crime lab and canine officers are of high quality. A merger would

not achieve a clear public benefit. There is little service overlap between the current

operations and there would be no redundancy in a consolidated department that would

allow a decrease in positions. On the contrary, because of labor issues – and the inability

to move the Special Services Division with all it current personnel intact – expertise

would decrease until it could be built back over multiple years.

Further Considerations

If the obstacles to the consolidation of the MCSO Special Services Division and the

Morris County Park Police could be overcome and discussions are held in the future

about a merger, there are certain potential efficiencies that might be achieved. They relate

to Criminal Investigation Section scheduling, Criminal Investigation Section

civilianization, and call out thresholds.

CIS Scheduling

CIS personnel in a merged department could be scheduled so that personnel are on dutyduring an evening shift. It was reported that such coverage is being examined by the

MCSO. These changes would result in a reduction in the number of night call-outs, and

subsequently a reduction in overtime. The chart on page 12, “MCSO CIS FIELD

RESPONSES – July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012”, overlays the current CIS schedule

on the times when field responses occur. The current Monday through Friday schedule –

with its two shifts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. – covers 41% of the

field responses.

Redeploying the existing personnel so that some employees would work a shift onweekdays from 4 p.m. to midnight would cover an additional 28% of the field responses

for a total coverage of approximately 69% of the field response. Overtime for callouts

might be reduced by some 28% as a result. This altered coverage is shown in the chart

below.


Page 32




MCSO CIS FIELD RESPONSES – July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012

With Evening Shift Added

Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday00 4 6 4 9 7 1 3

01 11 5 4 5 1 2 402 4 5 12 2 4 1 2

03 6 2 3 1 9 1 8

04 8 7 2 4 5 1 4

05 3 3 4 2 3 4 2

06 6 10 8 19 6 12 5

07 6 11 15 10 11 13 8

08 12 11 9 16 18 22 16

09 11 28 7 23 9 14 8

10 13 11 15 17 10 17 8

11 12 8 25 20 11 10 8

12 8 10 11 14 19 22 16

13 6 21 18 15 19 16 1014 9 21 13 18 14 9 9

15 7 21 15 16 11 20 13

16 3 15 15 17 13 19 14

17 11 10 9 12 6 18 10

18 5 11 8 12 12 14 2

19 4 5 13 13 10 14 4

20 3 7 9 12 9 11 8

21 8 6 17 12 7 17 6

22 10 3 10 6 8 23 9

23 1 12 11 12 13 11 6

Shaded areas represent on-duty coverage.

CIS Civilianization

In a merged department, CIS personnel involved primarily in evidence collection and

analysis could be civilians. Many law enforcement agencies across the country have

successfully used non-sworn personnel for all aspects of crime scene field work and

laboratory processing.

A standard set of objections is often raised when considering the civilianization of

operational positions. Although civilian employees do not have the general policing

experience of sworn officers, they can be trained to a level where they have

commensurate or greater skills, knowledge and ability in carrying out the specific range

of operational processes involved in the evidence and crime scene functions.


Page 33




Civilians have proven to be reliable and capable in safeguarding evidence and managing

confidential/sensitive information. The measure of whether a person can be trusted to

work in sensitive positions does not lie in their sworn vs. civilian status, but in their

personal values, the rigor of their background investigation, and their work history.

Civilian employees sometimes are subjected to less scrutiny than sworn officers in their background investigations. But in cases where the civilian is handling confidential

information and/or evidence, the depth of the background investigation should be at least

as rigorous as that of a police officer.

Civilianization could be achieved through attrition and by hiring experienced technicians

from other agencies. Care would need to be taken to gradually blend personnel in order

to maintain the current level of superior expertise.

Call Out ThresholdsIn the current environment, ESU or CIS will respond to virtually every request received

from another police department in Morris County. While most of the callouts may be

justified, this approach places Special Services workload and overtime accrual in the

hands of others.

With consolidation, call-out thresholds could be developed, defining circumstances under

which ESU/CIS personnel will respond. Establishing thresholds, and subsequently call-

outs, may not result in any savings when officers are on duty, but may result in overtime

reductions when officers are not on duty.


Page 34




APPENDIX: Salary Tables

Morris County Sheriff’s Office


Page 35





Page 36




Morris County Parks Police


Page 37




Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	morris-county-nj
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Morris County Sheriff's Office and Morris County Parks Police Partial Consolidation Feasibility...

Documents