kpmg operational and performance review of the sheriff’s

1

KPMG Operational and Performance Review of the Sheriff’s Office

February 9, 2021Meeting of the Board of Supervisors

KPMG and Sheriff’s Office Response

Today’s Presentation1. Context and Scope

2. Sheriff’s Office Organization Overview

3. KPMG Operational and Performance Review Summary –Sheriff’s Office

4. Sheriff’s Office Response and Implementation Timeframe

2

Context Renew 22 – improve efficiency, effectiveness and customer service of all

County operations. KPMG selected in May 2019 after competitive process Nine departments in first year CEO, HR, GS – complete Public Health and Planning & Development – complete or nearing

completion Sheriff, Public Defender – complete Probation, District Attorney – complete

Three departments in second year Fire – under review BeWell and Social Services – to be completed

All departments to be reviewed over four-year period

3

Scope Compare to best practices to highlight where improvements needed Not a financial audit or budget cutting exercise Recommendations should result in savings, efficiencies or better

performance and outcomes Areas of focus - selected with department and CEO’s office Relies on department cooperation, data availability and interviews Scope did not include implementation plans; will be up to

departments

4

Organization Overview: Sheriff’s Office

5

Staff: 737 FTEBudget: $155 Million

Improving Performance to Better Serve Our County Residents

Board of Supervisors Presentation

7© 2021 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.

Santa Barbara County Operational and Performance Review

Year One Project TimelineFY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21

Department

May

June

July

August

September

October

Novem

ber

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

Novem

ber

County Executive Office

Human Resources

General Services

Public Health

Planning &Development

Sheriff-Coroner

Public Defender

District Attorney

Probation


KPMG commenced the review of Sheriff’s Office in February 2020. The purpose was to identify strengths and opportunities to improve the overall operational efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery provided by the County.

Santa Barbara County Operational and Performance Review

Methodology


Santa Barbara County Operational and Performance Review – Sheriff’s Office

Commendations

Creation of the Sheriff’s Service Technician position

Sheriff’s Treatment Program

Construction of the North County Jail

Alternative Sentencing Bureau


Santa Barbara County Operational and Performance Review – Probation Department

Current and Recommended Operating Model

Education and training (People)

Reactive ProactiveProvides minimal training; ad hoc

Offers routine skills training

catered to departmental

need

Offers skills and leadership trainings

catered to departmental needs

Trainings are used to drive outcomes for customers and

focus on continuous

improvement

Provides minimal training; Identified and requires some

trainings

Processes Locally specific

Standardizedand optimized

Disaggregatedprocesses andresponsibilities

Standardized processes; limited

to individual function or region

Standardizedprocessesfor all core

Department processes

Standardizedprocesses

for low-value high-

volume transactions

Low degree ofstandardization

andautomation

Service deliverymodel

Lack of coordination Optimized

Autonomous localfunctions (e.g.

objective setting at office level)

Local functions reporting to department

Work is performed

irrespective of geographical

location

Majority of work shared across

regions

Low degree ofSome sharing of workload across

regions


Technology Incompatible systems

Enterprisesystems

Multiple systems, tools and manual

interfaces

Unified consolidation framework, multitude of systems with

interfaces

Standard systems,interface layer;

overlap of functionality in

systems; systems freely share data

Standard tools/applications with no overlap of

functionality

Data & Reporting

Inconsistent / decentralized data models

and reporting

Enterprise data model/”one

version of truth”

Non-integrated data models;

reporting is highly manual

Application-specific data models

and reporting

Department-specific data models and

reporting

Department standards for data models; reports are

rationalized and used consistently

Harmonized data model supports fully integrated reporting across

organization

Santa Barbara County Operational and Performance Review – Probation Department

Current and Recommended Operating Model

Governance & Controls Informal

Centralized, automated, and

preventive

Reactive; manual

detection controls; no

formal governance

Risk-based controls; some

automation; formal governance

Use of automated controls and

analytics tools to maintain

governance standards

Automated, risk-based preventative control integrated

into existing systems

Regular reviews of controls and policies, some analysis; limited governance in place

Standard tools and

applications, onsingle occurrence



Sheriff’s Office Recommendations

Denotes Board Policy Item

Office Recommendations

1.1 Adopt demand-based, workload-driven processes to optimize staffing and service levels

1.2. Restructure staffing model and assess barriers to filling funded positions and drivers of attrition

2.0 Implement data-driven decision-making to enhance operational decision-making

3.0 Maximize technology enablement through strategic planning, investments, and vendor management to increase operational efficiency

4.0 Enhance performance measurement and management processes to streamline operations, finance, and service delivery



1.1 Demand-driven staffing

Figure 4: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office budget and CAD data


Figure 5: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of County CAD data



22,351 21,491 20,279

7,385 7,392 7,316

12,898 14,518 12,343

17,511 17,971 17,977

1,377 1,354 1,150

14,834 14,594 13,013

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2017 2018 2019

Calls

for S

ervi

ce

Year

Calls for Service by Priority

P1 P2 MISC RPT 7 T

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2017 2018 2019

Calls

for S

ervi

ce

Year

Top 5 Calls for Service by Year

TRAFFIC STOP Phone Request

Persons Crimes - All other Misc Priority Incdnt

Alarm Activations - All Field Interview/PR Contact

Figure 6: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sherriff’s Office CAD data




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

Perc

ent

Hour of Day

2019 Call Volume by Time of Day

Figure 9: Source: KPMG LLP analysis of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office schedules

Figure 10: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office CAD data




Figure 14 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of Custody Operations Branch data



2.0 Data-driven Decision-making

Figure 20: Source - KPMG visualization of SBSO data



2.0 Data-driven Decision-making

Figure 21: Source - KPMG visualization of SBSO data





Branch Recommendations: Law Enforcement Operations

5.1 Realign call type descriptions and priority levels to enable tracking and in-depth analysis of calls for service

5.2. Implement tracking of response time targets to improve service delivery and performance

5.3 Expand call diversion, telephone reporting, and online reporting to allow for the appropriate prioritization of resources

5.4 Develop and codify consistent, data-driven policies to govern the use of overtime

5.5 Improve deputy time tracking to enhance understanding of productivity and utilization



5.2 Response time targets

13.01 11.14 8.22 12.97 15.29 19.408.13

24.92 1.60 2.77

19 24 1726 23

3825

110

6 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Min

utes

Call priority by contract city and unincorporated area

Average Assigned Time and Caller Wait Time by Priority and ContractAverage Assigned Time Average Caller Wait Time

Figure 34: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office CAD data



5.3 Alternative call resolution

1.82%

1.51%1.68%

-0.15%

0.35%

0.85%

1.35%

1.85%

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

2017 2018 2019Year

Perc

ent

Calls

for S

ervi

ce

Online Reporting and 911 Calls for Service911 Call Volume Online Reporting Totals

Figure 35 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office CAD and Online Reporting Data

Figure 36 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of Riverside County Sheriff's Office

Exemplar Civilian Call Diversion Analysis



5.4 Overtime

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Administrationand Support

Countywide LawEnforcement

Court SecurityServices

Custody

FTEs

bas

ed o

n ov

ertim

e ho

urs

Law Enforcement Deputy Overtime by Budget Unit

Figure 37: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office payroll data Figure 4: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office budget and CAD data





Branch Recommendations: Custody Operations

6.1 Conduct jail utilization analysis to better understand drivers of incarceration

6.2 Expand diversion programs to reduce jail utilization

6.3 Assess drivers of Custody Operations Branch overtime to better reflect demand for service

6.4 Realign custody staffing mix and increase utilization of SSTs

6.5 Enhance programming and increase capacity in the ASB to reduce overpopulation

6.6 Increase internal collaboration and support of the Sheriff’s Treatment Program to address inmates’ criminogenic needs


6.2 Jail Utilization Analysis

339 347 339 327 301

166 170 135 125 127

510 563 566 528 496

106127

8594

74

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Perc

ent

Year

Average Daily Population by Charge Type and Status

Average Felony Sentenced Average Misdemeanor Sentenced

Average Felony Non-Sentenced Average Misdemeanor Non-Sentenced


Source - KPMG LLP analysis


6.2 Jail Utilization AnalysisSanta Barbara County Operational and Performance Review – Sheriff’s Office

301 252156 119 121

12774

3124 20

496

440

401385 399

74

60

3027 29

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2019 Average 20-Mar 20-Apr 20-May 20-Jun

Inm

ate

Popu

latio

n

COVID-19 Impact on Average Daily Population

Felony Sentenced Misdemeanor Sentenced Felony Unsentenced Misdemeanor Unsentenced

Source - KPMG LLP analysis




5,036 4,683 4,595

3,973 3,774 3,417

2,7002,362

2,063

844922

679

832787

746

17721,563

1,581

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2017 2018 2019

Book

ings

Year

Bookings by Arresting Agency 2017-2019

All Others LOPD LOMPOC PD

CHP CAL HIGHWAY PATROL SMPD SANTA MARIA PD

SBPD SANTA BARBARA POLICE DEPARTMENT SBSO SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF

Figure 45 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of inmate data 2017–2019'




72 66

25

252

202

59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2017 2018 2019

Book

ings

Revocation of Parole and Probation Bookings 2017-2019

Rev Parole Rev Probation

27.1%

28.1% 28.3%

26.4%

26.6%

26.8%

27.0%

27.2%

27.4%

27.6%

27.8%

28.0%

28.2%

28.4%

2017 2018 2019

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

elea

ses

Cite Release as a Percent of Total Bookings





6.3 Custody Operations Overtime

Deploy workload-driven correctional staffing model

(optimized scheduling)

Enhance tracking of overtime usage to

include more detailed justification

Assess overtime usage on a recurring basis to inform staffing model

Figure 14 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of Custody Operations Branch data



6.4 Custody Operations Staffing Mix

Custody Deputy, 193.25, 95%

Sheriff Service Technician, 10, 5%

Custody Branch Breakout of Custody Deputy and Sheriff Service Technician

Figure 58 - Source: KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office budget

Figure 59: Source - KPMG LLP analysis of Sheriff's Office budget data

Staffing Cost Analysis

Questions

kpmg operational and performance review of the sheriff’s

Documents