Download - Improving the efficiency of public safety services · requests were made where necessary to ensure completeness, consistency, and data quality. Where data quality was a concern, KPMG

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


– 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.


– 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


– 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


– 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.


– 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.



– 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.


– 8 –

Recommendation

Divisions,

sections, or

units affected

Potential estimated


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


http://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf


– 9 –

Recommendation

Divisions,

sections, or

units affected

Potential estimated


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.


– 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


– 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


– 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,


Overtime

costs



– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


Executive Office

51%

6%

40%

4%

Force mix: deputies, detention

deputies, and civilians

Deputies Detention Deputies

Civilians Training Academy


– 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


– 19 –

Division/

Section

Adopted


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.


– 20 –

Division/

Section

Adopted


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.


– 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)


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


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


Communciations

Office of the Sheriff


– 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


– 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.


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%


allocations by agency, 2018

Marion County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)

Community Corrections

Superior Court

Marion County Prosecutor


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


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.


$-

$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



– 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


– 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.


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



– 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,




– 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


– 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.


– 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


– 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



Sergeant $50,631 $61,956

Court Security $33,742 $37,380

911 Dispatcher $36,929 $43,105


– 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


– 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


– 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.


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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



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



2018 (through June) $25.9 million $1.8 million $25.9 million


– 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


– 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



– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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.


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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%


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7-15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4%3D

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1185392/26121870/1428513375150/LEAD_EVALUATION_4-7-15.pdf?token=edkGRppYyiA8LEe8OwtPwwuk0d4%3D


– 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.


– 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


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.


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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.


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


Overtime

expenditures




2018 (through

June)

$4.0 million $2.7 million 4% 78 $0.1 million

*staffing drawn from annual budget presentations


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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

http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/08/SexOffenderPaper.pdf


http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf


– 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


– 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


– 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.


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


– 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.



– 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.


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


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


– 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


– 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


– 94 –


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


– 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.



– 97 –


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.


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


Overtime

expenditures

2015 $7.9 million $8.5 million 158 $281,000 $0.3 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.


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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.


– 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



http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf


– 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.


– 111 –

Section/Unit Estimated

savings (time)

Estimated savings

(value of deputy time)


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



Sergeant $50,631 $61,956

Court Security $33,742 $36,409


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,




– 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



– 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


– 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.


– 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


– 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.


– 117 –

Transition Roadmap


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


– 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


lection – Copy.xlsx



lection.xlsx


2017_Annual_PSAP_Expenditures_and_Funding_Data_Col

lection to State 1-31-2018.xlsx


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


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

https://mft.us.kpmg.com/human.aspx?r=2061820065&Arg12=fileview&Arg11=1&Arg07=489539059&Arg06=487374756






https://mft.us.kpmg.com/human.aspx?OrgID=3248&Arg12=fileview&Arg06=487374756&Arg07=490458109































– 128 –


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 August 3 2015 Office Operations Data 6/27/2018

Staffing June 5 2017 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


Arrest Information – BABL Data Request Office Operations Data 7/3/2018

2018 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



– 129 –


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



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



!! TRAINING INVENT 2015 !!.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


2016TimeInfo.xlsx Office Operations Data 7/12/2018

2017 CAP & CONT FA.PDF Office Operations 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


– 130 –


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



General Ledger Reports 2015-2018 YTD.xlsx Financial Data 7/17/2018



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





– 131 –







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


MCSO Fleet Office Operations Data 8/15/2018

MCSD FLEET POLICY Office Operations Data 8/15/2018










2015_PD_Runs Office Operations Data 8/15/2018



Data Headers Office Operations Data 8/15/2018


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







– 132 –


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 effect 04-24-2017.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


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


– 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


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


Observation


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


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


– 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


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

[email protected]

Bill Zizic

Managing Director, Justice &

Security Advisory

[email protected]

Brendan Davis

Director, Justice & Security

Advisory

[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]