The Auditor’s 2002 Work Program included a review of the county’s two secure detention facilities, the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF) in Seattle and the Regional Justice Center (RJC) in Kent.  Both facilities are operated by the county’s Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention (DAJD).

Scope

The Auditor’s Office sought to identify and analyze the major drivers of costs of secure detention-adult (SDA) in the county’s jail system.  As staffing costs typically consume a large portion of jail resources, the study team focused on those staffing and operational policies that drive staffing costs.  Also, because of concerns over the rising costs of health care in the jails, the study examined the cost of jail health services delivered by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health.

Primary Cost Drivers

In the last eight years, jail costs have risen largely because of these factors:

1. Growth in the inmate population which required an increase in jail capacity, namely the addition of a second jail, the Regional Justice Center, in Kent.
2. Implementation of the Hammer settlement, which specifies staffing patterns and operational practices that may not be the most cost-efficient, but over which DAJD has no control.
3. Operational and facility design constraints with significant cost implications, over which DAJD has limited control.
4. Internal policy decisions that have limited DAJD’s ability to take advantage of economies of scale associated with growth in the jail population.
5. Fast-growing costs for jail health services and county internal services.

Cost Allocation Model Developed

To better understand how these factors affect jail operations and costs, auditor staff developed a cost allocation model for adult secure detention.  The model is based on current operational policies and practices at the jails, but it is also capable of demonstrating the fiscal effects of changes in how the jails operate and are staffed.  Thus, it can be used as an ongoing tool for analyzing jail operations and for assisting decision-makers when considering operating and capital alternatives.

Model Can Analyze Costs

We expect that the model will be useful in the development of an Operational Master Plan for the county’s jails, as envisioned in the 2003 budget ordinance.  The model is capable of showing the cost impact of alternative staffing and operational configurations considered through the master planning process, and it can be used to establish internal benchmarks for what DAJD’s costs would be without certain constraints or with different policies.

This study did not review juvenile detention or operations such as the North Rehabilitation Facility, Work Education Release, or Electronic Home Detention.

Jail inmate population has grown steadily since the opening of the downtown jail in 1985.  Only within the last year has that population begun to decline slightly.  To accommodate the growing number of inmates, the county built the Regional Justice Center in Kent, which began operation in 1997.

Factors Affecting Cost Increases

Costs associated with adult secure detention have risen as well.  Looking at budgets from 1994 to the present, we noted the following:

• DAJD, operating from both the Current Expense (CX) and Criminal Justice (CJ) Funds, represents the largest single budget component of both funds. 

• In 2001, the department’s total budget (CX plus CJ) was $108 million, of which about $89 million (or about 80 percent) was spent on adult secure detention.[1]  That amount represents nearly 20 percent of the county’s combined CX and CJ budgets.

RJC Began Operations in 1997

• The cost per inmate and the ratio of full time equivalent staff per inmate peaked in preparation for and at the opening of the RJC, but they began to level off in the ensuing years.
• Overall expenditure levels have continued to rise since the opening of the RJC, however, largely due to the rising cost of jail health services and the cost of county internal services.

• The cost of jail health services provided by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has grown about 50 percent faster than the cost of SDA operations and accounts for nearly 40 percent of the increase in the total DAJD budget over the last three years.  Jail Health’s costs now represent roughly 20 percent of the total SDA budget.  Increased labor costs, staffing for accreditation, and pharmaceutical costs contributed to this change.
• The cost of county internal services rose 38 percent faster than the overall cost of SDA from 1999-2001, and amounted to 15 percent of adult secure detention costs in 2001.

The jail system operates under constraints and policies that systemically determine jail staffing and population levels.  DAJD has considerable control over some of these constraints, but little or no influence over others.

DAJD's Level of Control Varies

DAJD has made efforts to efficiently manage its inmate population within these constraints, for example by making regular decisions regarding which housing units are most cost-effective to operate and where inmates should be most cost-effectively housed.  However, there remain systemic staffing and population constraints that create costly inefficiencies within the jail staffing system.  The department lacks the flexibility it needs to respond to ongoing changes in inmate population in a cost-effective manner.

Our study identified important constraints with significant cost implications:

Little or No Direct Control

• Hammer Settlement.  The 1998 Hammer settlement between King County and the American Civil Liberties Union (based on court rulings and consent decrees in 1990 and 1991) limits total capacity and strictly mandates staffing levels in all housing units in KCCF.

• Facility Design.  Both KCCF and RJC have design limitations that create staffing inefficiencies and prevent Adult Detention from taking advantage of larger economies of scale. 

• Inmate Population.  The number, type, and average length of stay of jail inmates are driven primarily by criminal law, law enforcement activity, prosecutorial decisions, court schedules, and sentencing decisions. 

• Court Requirements.  Superior Court rules require that inmates awaiting a court hearing or trial be housed in the jail that is located in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

• Jail Health Services.  The number of inmates needing medical or mental health care is determined by Jail Health staff (Public Health), and Adult Detention must provide supervision and escorts for them.

Some Control

• Staff Bargaining Agreements.  Staff constraints in collective bargaining agreements include work hours, wages, vacation and sick leave use, seniority rules, number of staff who may take leave each day, etc. 
• Maintenance and Supply.  Per agreements with the Facilities Management Division, Adult Detention provides escorts to all maintenance workers when jail facilities require repair work.  However, Adult Detention determines the staffing levels necessary for the escorts.
• ITR (Intake, Transfer, and Release) and Court Detail Staffing.  The workload for these functions is driven by law enforcement activity, transfers to and from other regional detention facilities, and court schedules.  However, Adult Detention determines the staffing levels necessary to meet workload demands.

Full Control - Policy Decisions

• Staffing and Inmate Capacity at RJC.  In contrast to KCCF where the Hammer settlement mandates staffing and inmate capacity, staffing and capacity at the RJC are set entirely by Adult Detention policies.  These include:

• Minimum staffing levels for residential housing security when single-bunking.
• Increasing corrections and activity officer staffing when double-bunking.
• Limiting double-bunking to 65 percent increase in capacity in general population housing units.
• Providing the same security staffing levels for minimum and medium security inmates.

Causes of Inefficiencies

These staffing and population constraints and policy decisions create inefficiencies and cost-drivers within the jail operating system.  For example, when single-bunked, the general population housing units at the RJC are among the most efficient in the system.  However, when they are double-bunked the cost per inmate increases, because Adult Detention’s double-bunking staffing policy requires a higher number of corrections officers per inmate than single-bunking.  As a result, even though the jail’s space is being used more efficiently, the facility becomes more expensive to operate.

As another example, the staffing rules at KCCF (fixed by Hammer) and at the RJC (based on department policy) require the same staffing levels for minimum and medium security inmates.  This “fixed” staffing plan prevents Adult Detention from improving its efficiency by providing different supervision levels for lower, less risky, minimum security inmates.

Cost Allocation Model

Prior to this study, no cost allocation model existed that included all operating costs of DAJD’s two secure adult detention centers, and that could provide information on how costs would vary with inmate population changes.  As a result, and in order to fully understand the factors that drive the operating costs of the two jails, the study team and its consultants studied jail operations and staffing practices, and developed an adult secure detention cost allocation model that reflects current jail operations.  The team received extensive cooperation from DAJD in developing the model, and to ensure its accuracy, the team submitted the model for technical review by staff of DAJD and the Budget Office.

Uses of Model

As noted above, the model is based on current DAJD policies and practices.  It allows for analysis of Adult Detention’s operating costs and a comparison of these costs on a per inmate basis.  The model can also be utilized to demonstrate how costs would vary in response to changes in inmate population or staffing practices, and allows analysts to establish internal benchmarks for what DAJD’s costs would be without these constraints.

The study team believes the model will be useful to the development of an Operation Master Plan for the county’s jails, as envisioned in the 2003 budget ordinance.  The model will be capable of showing the cost impact of alternative staffing and operational configurations considered through the master planning process. 

Recommendation:  DAJD Analyses Needed

DAJD needs to conduct further analyses about how certain operational areas of secure detention would change based on variations in the jail population, and what concomitant modifications in staffing could occur.  While we have modeled how costs would change in residential housing and in dietary services, there remain other areas where further analysis is required.  Examples are ITR and Court Detail, whose staffing appears to be unaffected by jail population changes.  At present, the cost model will not show fiscal impacts in such areas unless an entire facility were to close.

JAIL HEALTH SERVICES

In developing the portion of the cost allocation model dealing with jail health services, the study team could not readily access service or workload information in electronic format or a staffing model on which to base costs. 

Data Limitations in Key Areas

Jail Health Services has manual information but does not have systematic reliable electronic information on insurance eligibility, electronic billing, and its services.  As a result, Jail Health Services finds it difficult to:

• Seek additional cost reimbursement through Medicaid or third-party private insurance.

• Develop a staffing model based on services and workload.

• Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of services.

Moreover, the lack of systematic management data and an updated strategic business plan inhibit current efforts by Public Health to make jail health operations more cost-effective.

Recommendations for Jail Health Services

The highlights of our recommendations are as follows:

• Jail Health and DAJD need a process to identify whether inmates are enrolled in Medicaid or third-party insurance plans so that Jail Health can then bill accordingly for cost reimbursement.
• Jail Health needs to collect systematic and accessible reliable data in electronic format on services provided to jail inmates so that it can:

• Properly bill for services.
• Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of care and services.

• Jail Health should update its strategic business plan and link it to current efforts to study operational improvements, cost containment, and revenue enhancement.  This would allow for:

• Performance based contracts.
• A managed competition service model.
• Other policy options for service delivery.

DAJD Oversight of Jail Health

DAJD does not have a formal oversight process in place other than a national accreditation review for monitoring or evaluating Jail Health Services. 

Currently Jail Health’s staff determine which inmates need additional observation due to suicide risks and which require health care that can only be provided outside of the jail.  In recent years, the number of corrections officers required to guard these inmates has increased.  Even though these Jail Health decisions impact corrections officer workload and DAJD’s budget, Adult Detention does not have a means, such as a performance-based contract, to monitor Jail Health’s decisions and to provide assurance that such staffing increases are reasonable.

Oversight and accountability would be improved if DAJD were to monitor those Jail Health operations and policies which affect DAJD workload and costs.  Under such oversight, DAJD would not have to decide or review Jail Health’s professional practices and standards.  Instead, DAJD, and county policy-makers, would need to know that appropriate criteria and policies guide decisions by Jail Health.  This would apply especially for treatment outside the jail and other factors that have an impact on DAJD workload and costs.

Recommendation:  Oversight of Jail Health

DAJD and Jail Health Services should develop a formal oversight process for monitoring and evaluating health services provided to jail inmates.  A performance-based contract between the agencies may provide additional accountability for those services.

Summary of Executive Response

The executive concurs with all of the recommendations in the report.  It also acknowledges the auditor’s cost allocation model to be a valuable tool for decision-making in future years.  The response reiterates the rationale for the 1:64 staffing ratio at RJC, and it indicates Jail Health is already working on implementation in many areas.

We appreciate the executive’s concurrence with all the recommendations in this report.  Agency personnel were helpful and cooperative partners in this study effort.

The Auditor’s Office is committed to working with all parties to update our cost allocation model so that it will continue to be a useful tool for budget and policy analysis, for the executive as well as the council.

We anticipate that the upcoming Operational Master Plan process will provide additional opportunity to evaluate alternative operating scenarios and assumptions relating to jail operations.

Acknowledgement

The Auditor’s Office wishes to thank the management and staff of the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, the Jail Health Services in the Department of Public Health, and the Budget Office for their assistance and cooperation. 

The auditor staff are also grateful to Bill Phillips, Director of Capital Programs, Washington State Department of Corrections, who provided valuable assistance regarding staffing and operations at McNeil Island Corrections Center.