rockingham county fr 7-11-14

Management Audit of the Department of Corrections

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE

July 14, 2014

matrixconsu l t i ng g roup

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 6 3. RESULTS OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY 26

4. RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY 37

5. ANALYSIS OF DETENTION CENTER STAFFING 64

6. ANALYSIS OF SUPPORT SERVICES 76 7. ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 89 8. INITIAL FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVES TO

INCARCERATION 112

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE Management Audit of the Department of Corrections

Matrix Consulting Group Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by Rockingham County to conduct a

comprehensive management, operations and staffing study of the Department of

Corrections (DOC). This final report document provides a summary of the project

team’s activities, findings and recommendations.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Rockingham County Detention Center operates a multiple security level

facility which houses approximately 300 people in both sentenced and unsentenced

statuses. In addition, without the ability to house them in a segregated way, females

are usually housed in other county facilities. Recent high employee turnover levels and

the rising cost of the detention system operations led to the County to request this study

to meet the following study objectives:

• Conducting a staffing analysis that provides for efficient pods deployment, determine appropriate staffing, and optimize overtime utilization management and shift structure.

• Examining inmate services to determine appropriate staffing and scheduling

practices for laundry, commissary, medical services, education and other programs.

• Analyzing and providing recommendations for improving payroll, time keeping,

purchase order, and inventory control practices. • Examining facility financial practices for efficiency. In particular, compare facility

costs against other facilities, recommend financial reporting improvements, and other maximize operational efficiency and improve useful life of the facility.

These issues led Rockingham County to ask what are its staffing, organizational

and operational needs to run an efficient and effective detention system. The Matrix



Consulting Group took a number of steps to develop our analysis, including the

following:

• Conducted extensive interviews of command staff, supervisors and line staff in the Rockingham County detention center.

• Conducted interviews with representatives of other Rockingham County criminal

justice agencies to discuss issues in the detention center. • Collected detailed descriptive data regarding all aspects of RCDOC operations.

These data collection efforts were focused on a number of categories including staffing, deployment, scheduling, bookings, releases, records operations, financial processes, use of alternatives to incarceration, etc.

• Developed a detailed descriptive profile which summarized the results of these

interviews and data collection efforts. This was reviewed, in detail, with the staff of the DOC to ensure the factual basis for the analytical steps which followed.

• Distributed a confidential employee questionnaire for all DOC staff. This survey

focused on a range of issues including workload, service levels, training, supervisory skills, internal communications and other issues. The results of these surveys were used by the project team to identify potential areas for further analysis in the course of the project.

• Developed numerous interim documents summarizing the results of each

analytical step in the project. The Matrix Consulting Group met with the command staff of the Rockingham County DOC to review each document and to make any corrections or changes necessitated by those meetings.

The final report is organized into chapters with attachments for supporting

documents. These include the following:

• A final version of the descriptive profile of the Rockingham County Department of Corrections.

• The results of the employee survey. • The results of the comparative survey of other counties in New Hampshire’s

detention center staffing and use of alternatives to incarceration. • The results of the staffing analysis for DOC housing units. • An analysis of support services in the Department of Corrections.



• An assessment of DOC organization and management. • An initial feasibility study of the potential to expand the use of alternatives to

incarceration in the County. The following provides a summary of the Matrix Consulting Group’s findings and

recommendations found in the study.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following table summarizes the principal findings, conclusions and

recommendations made in this report:

ANALYSIS OF DETENTION CENTER STAFFING The Department of Corrections has an adequate number of authorized positions to staff the facility. However, because of relatively high turnover levels overtime rates are high. While this is a cost effective approach it has led to morale issues and contributes to the turnover problem. As a result, in the longer term the Department should improve its recruitment and retention efforts to address potential morale and officer safety issues. Adopt a 12 hour, sixteen week, four team scheduling approach as described in this section. This will positively influence turnover, and will result in a cost savings of about $450,260 annually. This change would need to be negotiated with the employee collective bargaining group. The DOC has just converted the video arraignment Sergeant to a Corporal which the project team supports and recommends that this be a permanent conversion. This will result in a cost savings of approximately $3,678 annually in salary plus fringe benefits. ANALYSIS OF SUPPORT SERVICES The Department should make no change to its current levels of administrative staffing. Hire a Case Manager in the Human Services Division to coordinate overall service provision from intake through assimilation of the inmate into the community. The approximate cost of this position is $78,650, including salary and benefits at 57% of salary. The DOC Business Office should provide a reconciliation of any discrepancies between X-Jail, Munis and bank statements each month to the Finance Department. The DOC Business Office staff should meet monthly with the Finance Department of the County to discuss financial topics of current interest as well as topics of broader interest. Begin to enter inmates’ records of attendance and completion of programs and counseling sessions into X-Jail. Re-institute weekly meetings between command staff and medical staff in order to address contractual and operational issues in a more timely manner.



The DOC should enhance and supplement some of the recruitment, hiring and retention efforts it has recently implemented through a variety of methods. ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT Reorganize the roles and responsibilities for the Department of Corrections management team, taking many direct internal responsibilities from the Superintendent and making distinct assignments in administration, programs, internal operations and community corrections. First line supervisors need to be part of the organization of administrative duties. The DOC Superintendent should be tasked with developing a staff committee for the establishment of a formal strategic plan that includes a vision of what the RCDOC should be 3-5 years in the future, goals for improvement, and an action plan that defines each goal specifically, when it is to be accomplished, and who is responsible for completing the task. The development of a new Strategic Plan should include input from throughout the Department. A key outcome of this Strategic Plan should be the assignment of accountability to each manager and supervisor of attainable objectives relating to delivery and monitoring of service to the community as well as addressing internal Departmental improvement needs. The Superintendent should revise the DOC annual report which reports back on the progress toward meeting established objectives and obtain their feedback on this as well as new initiatives. This should be directed to the County community as well as to criminal justice professionals A more frequent and substantive set of communication processes needs to be implemented among managers and line staff in the Department of Corrections. The Superintendent, Major and Lieutenants should develop a system of data collection so that the response to meeting goals and objectives can be measured. The Superintendent and his managers must develop an internal and external performance reporting system based on these goals and objectives. The Superintendent and command staff should develop a training schedule for all supervisors and managers that includes Leadership and Organizational Change, Problem-Solving, Performance Management and Discipline and Ethics. Each manager in the Rockingham County Department of Corrections should receive a minimum of 40 hours per year on legitimately defined management and leadership topics. The Superintendent should develop a system to prepare supervisors and managers so that they can perform their functions successfully as well as assume the responsibilities of their supervisor when needed. Update the performance evaluation system to meet the Department’s need to improve first line supervision and management. Consider the development of minimal educational standards for each promotional level. The Superintendent, command and supervisory staff should meet off site for a one day planning session that relates directly to developing Department goals and objectives. This meeting may need to be facilitated by a third party. After the initial meeting, recurring meetings should be held annually to tie accountability to performance.



The Superintendent and representatives of the collective bargaining group should meet formally monthly or quarterly with frequent informal contacts. INITIAL FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION Expand the use of pre-trial and sentenced alternatives programs in a restrictive trial program with the goal of modest reduction in Detention Center populations. Once confidence has grown regarding these programs expand their use further. The County Commission needs to convene a Criminal Justice Council process to develop guidelines for the development of a comprehensive alternatives to incarceration program.



2. PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

This document presents a descriptive profile of the Rockingham County

Department of Corrections. The purpose of the descriptive profile is to document the

project team’s understanding of the organization, staffing, responsibilities, and

expenditures related to the provision of correctional programs and services. Data

contained in the profile were developed based on the work conducted by the project team,

including interviews with key staff involved in the process, observation of staff activity, and

collection of relevant documents and survey data.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Rockingham County Department of Corrections (RCDOC) provides inmate

confinement, supervision, rehabilitation and reintegration services in the County in

accordance with statutory standards. The Department is charged with maintaining the

security and orderly operation of the facility, as well as the safety and security of the

inmates, visitors and staff.

2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The plan of organization for the RCDOC is presented in the following organization

chart:



Organization of the Department of Corrections Rockingham County, New Hampshire

Superintendent

Major

Lieutenant Scheduling/

Training Lieutenant Security

Sergeant Housing (6)

Corporals (8)

Correctional Officers (73)

Lieutenant Records

Sergeant Video

Arraignment

Lieutenant Community Corrections

Programs

Mental Health Coordinator

Education Coordinator

Drug/Alcohol Coordinator

Business Office Supervisor

Admin Assistant Accountant (2) Security Clerk



3. STAFFING

The exhibit below provides a summary of the RCDOC staff by classification, and

also summarizes their key roles and responsibilities.

Position Title # of Auth. Positions Key Roles & Responsibilities

Superintendent

1

• The Superintendent is responsible for the overall

management and oversight of the Department of Corrections.

• The Superintendent is appointed by Rockingham County Commission.

• The Superintendent directly supervises administrative staff as well as the Major; together with the Major the Superintendent supervises the four (4) Lieutenant positions.

• The Superintendent is responsible for managing the Department’s budget.

• The Superintendent works with other County justice system managers (County Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff and Courts) in evaluating the detention system’s needs and alternatives to incarceration.

Major

1

• The Major is the Chief of day-to-day operations of the

Department of Corrections. • The Major is appointed by Rockingham County

Commission and reports to the Superintendent. • The Major directly supervises the four (4) Lieutenant

positions. • The Major will take responsibility for the overall

Detention Facility in the absence of the Superintendent. Will develop annual performance evaluations for these staff.

• Takes a leading role in human resources functions relating to hiring and promotions, including arranging / coordinating interviewing, testing, etc.

• Reviews facility incident reports.




Lieutenant – Operations/Security

1

• Responsible for all operations in the facility 24/7. • Writes “good time release letters”. • Handles breaches of security, gathers intel through

mail, listening to phone calls, etc. • Responsible for cameras in the facility, ensuring

background checks on contractors. Also responsible for upgrades to cameras.

• Evaluates Sergeants’ performance (usually the Sgts on 2nd and 3rd shifts)

• Conducts defensive tactics training, pepperball training (certified instructor since 2004 on firearms, defensive tactics, pepperball, TASER)

• Ensures that the facility passes the “Prison Rape Elimination Act” inspection.

• Lt. does not respond personally to incidents, but does respond to suicides.

• Handles jail incident investigations • Hours are from 8:00 am till 4:00 pm

Lieutenant – Scheduling/Training

1

• Develops annual vacation schedule with input from

each sworn staff member, including individual requests for vacation days, and transfers onto hard-copy calendar. This must be in before February each year. Fills in empty slots with one or more of the RCDOC’s Floaters.

• E-mails schedule to supervisors, posts a copy in Booking, and sends a copy to Payroll.

• Inputs staff schedules into “Workforce” software for transmittal to County Finance Department.

• Monitors and reviews attendance to ensure conformance with contract (e.g., abuse of sick leave)

• Conducts internal affairs investigations. • Works with HR on DOC staff who are on STD, LTD,

WC, FMLA, tracking violations, monitoring transition from STD to LTD (meets with HR 2-3 times per week)

• Tracks performance evaluations. • Handles complaints from employees who have

complaints about another employee. • Administers training, and also ensures that each sworn

staff members receives 30 hours of recertification annually.




Lieutenant – Classification / Community Corrections

1

• Responsible for oversight and monitoring of

alternatives to incarceration within the responsibility of the Department of Corrections – mostly sentencing alternatives as the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office has responsibility for pre-trial alternatives. Actual duties include: – Interviewing of candidate offenders for release. – Develops participation plan for assignees. – Assigning GPS devices for participants. – Managing the Secure Alert contract. – Calls checking on the status of participants. – Repair equipment / troubleshoot. – Report on / successfully complete or terminate.

• Also screens the County’s work release program in the same was as duties for alternatives listed above.

• Supervises staff in charge of inmate classification. • Coordinates facility intell. • Coordinates with the County’s Drug Court. • Maintains the facility Law Library. • Works with the County’s alternatives oversight

committee on program trends, issues, etc. Lieutenant – Records

1

• Responsible for the oversight of inmate records. • Responsible for the oversight of court records. • Responsible for coordination of contract beds for

female detainees at four other county facilities (Hillsborough, Strafford, Cheshire and Sullivan counties), including transport to and from contract counties.

• Responsible for coordinating all inmate transports to other facilities as well as fugitives.

• Provides oversight of booking where inmate records are initiated; provides oversight of initial screening for medical and temporary housing in the facility.

• Maintains lists of upcoming releases from custody and calculates release dates for sentenced inmates.

• Responsible for oversight of and coordination for the County’s Jail Management System, “Arcomix”, including vendor interface, problem resolution, etc.

• Responsible for oversight of and coordination for other systems in use in the Department, including PCs and imaging of records.

• Supervises the Sergeant who is responsible for video arraignments.

• Responsible for facility supplies, including ordering bedding, inmate clothing, etc.




Sergeant – Operations

5

• Oversees the entry and exit of inmates from the facility,

and handles “all operations” of the facility during assigned shift.

• Briefs Officers on important details of day’s operations, gathers OT slips, determines who is in Booking, who is on suicide watch, etc.

• Ensures that all COs are performing their assigned duties.

• Deals with inmate issues as they arise • Ensures that paperwork is correct for inmates finishing

their sentences. • Conducts training • Performs rounds, checking on COs, handling issues

and problems as they arise • Handles e-mails related to AFIS (wrong charges, wrong

names, etc.) • Personally responds to emergency events. • Calls C.O.s to fill in shifts as absences occur.

Sergeant – Video Arraignment

1

• The Sgt. is assisted in this program by a CO who is

also involved in the STAR program • Obtains names of inmates scheduled for making video

appearances at the beginning of the day, and requests that a CO bring them in on schedule. Hearings are spread throughout the day.

• Sets up video equipment and communicates with judges and administrative staffs of courts before and during arraignments.

• Updates statistics from hearings, and updates the calendar to reflect which courts will have judges available on each day.

• Provides inmates a list of bonding companies and a financial affidavit.

• Hours: 6:45 am till 3:00 pm, M-F • Video Arraignment trends:

– 2009: 803 – 2010: 1,069 – 2011: 1,312 – 2012: 1,621 – 2013 (est.): 1,759




Corporal

6

• Assist Sergeants as lead personnel and supervisors for

housing units in the Rockingham County Detention Center.

• One Corporal classifies pre-sentenced inmates according to established criteria. Assigns cells according to classification and availability.

• One Corporal classifies sentenced inmates (Note: due to vacant Corporal position, a Sergeant is performing this duty currently). Inmates are placed either in cell block F or G. Inmates not in need of medical attention are transferred immediately to F Block. Current inmate workers being transferred from pre-trial blocks, or inmates known to the classifying officers may be transferred to G Block.

• Observes inmate interactions and makes necessary changes to classification.

• Gathers intelligence from inmates verbally and through observation.

Correctional Officer

• Correctional Officers staff the fixed post staffing plan

for the Rockingham County detention Center. Their roles include:

– Inmate movement, – Housing control, – Oversight for meals, etc. • Correctional Officers also staff central control and are

responsible for operation of the control room for the facility. This includes video monitoring of all activities within the facility, control of doors and elevators, and verification of identification/purpose of visitors.


1

• Provides a variety of programs for sentenced inmates

in need of mental health and wellness, such as anger management, reasoning skills, art therapy and others. Inmates may be referred by the nurse, or may request services directly on a Request Form.

• Refers inmates in need of acute care to emergency room at State Hospital.

• Refers inmates to contract psychiatrist at the Correctional facility infirmary.

• Communicates with local shelters, alerting them of the release of inmates who have been treated for mental illness while at the Correctional facility.




Drug and Alcohol Counselor

1

• Conducts 28-day “Solutions, Transitions and Recovery”

(STAR) programs for inmates to assist in recovery from drug and alcohol dependency.

• Receives most inmate referrals from the courts, with some self-referrals.

• Conducts individual counseling sessions with inmates. • Addresses criminal behaviors with inmates. • Screens sentenced inmates for addiction, living

arrangements, criminal background, mental health history, treatment history for suitability for the STAR program.


1

‘ • Conducts GED classes for pre-trial inmates. • Registers inmates for GED classes on HiSet web site.

Sets up test dates with Exeter Adult Education, which processes exams.

• Holds three one-hour classes weekly. • Coordinates individual tutoring sessions for inmates. • Provides one-hour session for first three weeks of the

STAR program on getting jobs, setting financial goals and relationships.

• Serves as the DOC librarian, evaluating donated books for appropriateness, value, and searching for contraband.

• Takes minutes for STAR meetings and creates participation list for these meetings.

• Currently developing user manual for X jail system to track programs, attendance, completion.

• Writes annual grant for OSHA 10 hour safety course. Business Office Supervisor

1

• Supervises the Business Office staff, making job

assignments, reviewing submitted work, performing performance reviews, etc.

• Alternates bi-weekly periods with full time Accountant in doing the DOC payroll. They do this in the “Workforce” software system, and upload into the County’s Munis system.

• Handles procurement for the DOC, developing A/P warrants, creating POs, and inputting PO into Munis.

• Handles contracts for renewal, RFPs, updating bid lists, etc.

• Tracks the DOC budget, running weekly reports and going over this with the Supt.

• Forecasts expenditures vs. budgets, and makes decisions on fund transfers.




Security Clerk

1

• Serves as Department Receptionist, greeting visitors to

the facility, answering phones, etc. • Performs security screening for all visitors to the facility. • Updates “Inmate Visitor List” monthly and checks to

ensure that visitors have been approved by specific inmates (visitation hours vary by cell block).

• Notifies attorneys upon inmates’ requests, logs attorney calls.

• Separates stamped mail from pre-paid mail, and separates indigent (indigents get 2 free letters per week) mail from legal mail. Maintains a running total on the postage meter.

• Prepares report of inmate headcounts, both at RCDOC and at the other four facilities at which RCDOC inmates are housed.

• Hands out applications for employment, keeps up with property release and receives UPS packages and small vendor deliveries.

• Work hours are from 8:00 am till 4:00 pm Administrative Assistant

1

• Tracks all appointments and keeps calendar for the

Superintendent. • Compiles information on inmate population using

census data from X-Jail. Generates bi-weekly report for the Superintendent for submittal to the Board.

• Compiles information on inmates and offender participation in various programs such as Electronic Monitoring, Work Release, STAR, Day Reporting and Adult Diversion. Generates a bi-weekly report for the Superintendent for submittal to the Board.

• Files Incident Reports with the Coordinator of Workers Comp claims.

• Handles logistics when staff go out of town. • Creates Purchase Orders for supplies, uniforms, paper,

chemicals, etc. Processes accounts payable warrants as needed. Verifies orders when received.

• Sorts and distributes inter-office mail, maintains copy machine, fills out office supply orders.

• Incumbent is cross-trained as Security Clerk, and in handling inmate accounts (deposits, warrants, account transactions)

• Helps answer staff questions related to payroll, HR, new hire orientation for admin staff, etc.

• Balances petty cash, monthly expenditure reporting and is custodian of the account.

• Assists with RFPs and renewals of housing contracts with other facilities, and updates bid list.




Accountant

1 FT

1 Temp

• Tracks all inmate funds coming in and going out of the

jail, using the software package “X Jail”. • Credits inmate accounts, sending money to “managers”

(who may be spouses, children, etc.). • Credits inmate work release accounts. • Forwards release checks to either an inmate residence

or to another facility. • Debits accounts of inmates getting haircuts at the

facility. • Manages inmate phone accounts. • Does payroll on an every-other-period basis. Receives

schedule of hours to be worked by each employee and enters on form and on “Absentee Calendar”. Tracks doctor’s note for any absences.

• Transmits commissary orders to the vendor and follows up on all missing items.

• Maintains a daily census of females hosed in other facilities for billing purposes.

• Tracks all books being shipped to the facility from book sellers.

• Temporary Accountant reconciles financial activity to bank accounts, ensuring that the accounting is correct and reconciles against Munis and to X-Jail.

• Temporary Accountant ensures that all withdrawals from inmate accounts are correct.

• Temporary Accountant ensures that the County Finance Department transfers the correct amounts to inmate accounts and that these hit the bank.

• Accountant positions work 8:00 am till 4:00 pm Head Nurse

1

• Administers routine and emergency medical care to

inmates at the facility. • Schedules nurses on each of three shifts. • Coordinates tele-conferences between inmates and off-

site psychiatrist on Monday mornings. (Inmates must submit formal request to see psychiatrist, and must see DOC Mental Health Counselor first.)

• Attends inmate-patients with either the Nurse Practitioner or Medical Doctor on Tuesdays.

• Attends inmate-patients with Nurse Practitioner on Thursdays.

• Performs blood draws, performs blood pressure checks. • Head Nurse allocates a contractually-allotted 364 hours

per week to the medical staff over a three-shift operation. • Typically works 1st Shift, 7:00 am till 4:00 pm




Nurse

5.2

• Makes sick calls • Passes out medication to inmates • Conducts labs, EKGs, performs blood draws, blood

pressure checks. • Administers IVs, performs physicals on inmates. • Nurses are scheduled in accordance with the staffing plan

provided in the table below. Medical Assistant

1

• Primarily processes medical intakes. • Typically works from 11:00 am till 7:00 pm

The Rockingham County DOC is staffed 24 hours per day and 7 days per week

with a staffing plan that varies throughout daytime and nighttime hours depending on

the day of week (court days versus non-court days) and on activities hours (meals,

inmate visits, etc.). The “fixed post staffing plan” for the Rockingham County Detention

DOC is shown in the following table (with a second chart describing the principal use of

each housing area:



Fixed Post Staffing Plan for the Rockingham Detention Center

Unit Correctional Officer Sergeant

1st Shift 2nd Shift 3rd Shift Total 1st Shift 2nd Shift 3rd Shift Total Administration 1 1 1 3 Booking 1 1 1 3 Classification 1 1 2 Maintenance Float 1 1 Infirmary Float 1 1 6 – 2 Float 1 1 7 – 3 Float 1 1 1 – 9 Float 1 1 2 – 10 Float 1 1 3 – 11 Float 1 1 Central Control 2 2 1 5 A/B Block 2 2 1 5 C Block 2 2 1 5 D Block 2 2 1 5 E Block 2 2 1 5 F Block 2 2 1 5 G Block 2 2 1 5

Notes:

1. There is an “Optional” Block Supervisor on each shift , however, due to staffing levels, this position is typically not available, and is not listed in the staffing plan above.

2. The Supervisor is not assigned to a specific area of the jail. The position is responsible for the supervision of all personnel,

and is therefore shown as “Administration” in the staffing plan above.

3. On Saturdays and Sundays, there are no Classification Officers, Infirmary Float or Maintenance Float positions.

4. Personnel assigned to Classification are Corporals.



The following chart describes each of the housing areas in the Detention Center:

Block Offender Profile Security Level Capacity Description

A/B Pre-Trial Maximum/Medium 80 (32 + 48) Pre-Classification, Suicide Risks C Pre-Trial Maximum 48 No sex offenders D Pre-Trial Maximum 61 E Pre-Trial Medium 48 F Sentenced Medium/Minimum 87 G Sentenced Minimum 63 Work release and STAR Booking New Bookings N/A N/A Also suicide watch



4. STAFF COMPENSATION

The following chart displays the pay ranges employed by the Department for

non-administrative positions within operations, including the minimum and maximum

levels of compensation:

Corrections Salary Top and Bottom Steps

Position Min Max

Superintendent $69,875.29 $96,723.74 Major $58,793.95 $81,384.58 Lieutenant $49,751.08 $68,867.14 Sergeant $43,221.83 $59,829.12 Corporal $39,221.51 $54,291.74 Corrections Officer $30,992.00 $47,715.20

These figures do not include any adjustments to pay, such as shift differentials or

duty-based pay, as will be highlighted in the following tables. The first of these, located

below, focuses on the hourly increases available for shifts worked during certain time

periods:

Corrections Officer Duty Pay

Shift Period $ / Hour

3:00PM – 11:00PM $1.25 11:00PM – 7:00AM $1.25 Weekend $1.00

In addition, hazardous Duty Pay is paid at a rate of $25 per week.

Vacation time is accrued monthly according to years of service in the

department, with more experienced personnel receiving vacation time twice as fast as

new hires. The maximum cap for accrued vacation time scales with service time in a

similar manner, as well. The table below outlines the different thresholds:



Corrections Officer Vacation Accruals

Years of Service Accrual Rate (Hours / Month)

Annual Total (Hours / Year) Vacation Time Cap

1 6.875 82.5 165 5 10.3 123.75 247.5 10 13.75 165 330

Unlike vacation time, however, sick leave is accrued at a fixed rate, regardless of

an employee's years of service in the Department. The only distinction in this category,

however, is in the number of hours worked per week by the officer:

Corrections Officer Sick Leave Accruals

Work Week Accrual Rate (Hours / Month) Sick Leave Cap (Days)

24.75 – 33 6.1875 72 33 – 41.25 8.25 90

Bereavement leave is also granted to employees, allowing for 3 days to be taken

off per instance.

In addition, corrections officers may take 3 days off per year for personal leave. Longevity pay is offered to employees as a one-time payment every five years of

services, with more recent hires being compensated markedly higher. These payments

are represented in the table below:

Corrections Officer Longevity Pay

One-Time Payment Prior to 7/1/08 On or After 7/1/08

5 $100.00 $150.00 10 $200.00 $300.00 15 $300.00 $450.00 20 $500.00 $750.00 25 – $1,000.00



5. CORRECTIONS OFFICER NET AVAILABILITY CALCULATIONS

From the various different elements of the contract described in the previous

section, the project team is able to calculate the net availability of Corrections Officers.

These calculations, which use information from shift log data ranging from 1/1/2012 to

12/10/2013, compare the hours worked by these officers with the time they take off, as

well as any overtime and comp time that is used:

Corrections Officer Net Availability (1/1/2013 – 12/10/2013)

Category Hours

Total Hours Worked 146,239.84 Total Hours Worked Less OT and Comp Time 134,927.44 Time Off

Holiday 6,423.53 Vacation 4,640.28

Sick Leave 5,086.33

Bereavement 181.50

Personal 922.00 Subtotal 17,253.64

Net Availability 87.2% OT Hours 8,071.50

Total “add-back” time, which is comprised of the shift log fields “Holiday No” and

“Shift Pool [#]”, is not included in the calculation of corrections officer net availability.

6. POPULATION LEVELS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The Rockingham County DOC operates a multiple security level facility which

houses approximately 300 people in both sentenced and unsentenced statuses. In

addition, without the ability to house them in a segregated way, females are usually

housed in other county facilities. The table below, provides an overall summary of the

number of people incarcerated in the second half of 2013 in Rockingham County and

other counties on contract.



Date Total Population Total Male Total

Female

Total In-House

Population

Pre-Trial Detainees

Sentenced Prisoners

June 386 317 69 297 167 130 July 395 322 73 289 175 127 August 381 315 66 295 172 124 September 378 317 61 302 164 138 October 376 310 66 299 175 124 November 395 332 63 320 184 137 AVG 384.6 319.2 65.4 301.4 172.7 130 % Change 2.3% 4.7% -8.7% 7.7% 9.9% 5.0%

The table, below, shows the number of people on average incarcerated within

the Rockingham County DOC in the second half of 2013 by housing unit.

Date A-Block PreTrial Max/Med

B-Block PreTrial Max/Med

C-Block PreTrial

Max

DBlock Sent. Max

E-Block PreTrial

Med

F-Block Sent

Max/Med

G-Block Sent Min

Booking

June 14 28 40 42 40 77 53 3 July 18 34 37 44 38 78 49 4 August 20 36 33 41 37 72 52 5 September 17 32 34 40 36 80 58 7 October 20 35 33 44 30 76 48 13 November 20 41 33 46 35 81 56 9 AVG 18.6 35 34 42.4 35.9 76.8 53.2 6.7 % Change 39.3% 46.4% -18.8% 9.5% -12.5% 4.5% 5.7% 200.0%

The following table portrays the number of inmates, mostly females housed in

average at other county facilities in the State:



Date

Hills

Cheshire

Strafford

Sullivan

June 45 2 16 2 July 51 2 14 2 August 47 3 12 0 September 37 3 12 4 October 34 5 13 4 November 42 4 8 4 AVG 42.7 3.2 12 2.4 % Change -6.7% 100.0% -50.0% 75.0%

7. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS

The following table presents the total number of participants within each program

at different times over the last six months, at intervals typically around two weeks.

Trends in Community Corrections Programs (6/21/2013 – 11/22/2013)

End Date Electronic Monitoring Work Release STAR Day

Reporting Adult

Diversion 06/21/13 21 11 8 1 44 07/01/13 25 13 8 2 39 07/19/13 27 12 8 1 39 08/02/13 26 12 8 1 40 08/16/13 24 11 8 1 37 08/29/13 23 12 8 1 38 09/16/13 23 11 8 1 36 09/27/13 21 13 8 1 37 10/10/13 22 13 8 1 35 10/24/13 19 11 8 1 34

– – – – – – 11/22/13 19 12 8 1 29 AVG 22.7 11.9 8.0 1.1 37.1

• Participation in each program is fairly consistent across the period of time

covered by the table above. • Adult diversion participation did, however, drop from 44 to 29 total clients from

6/21/2013 to 11/12/2013, although this is not necessarily indicative of any changes regarding program assignment, as the decrease seems to occur in a relatively short time frame.



Overall, the data displayed in the table does not indicate any significant changes

to community corrections program. Given the short time frame and limited amount of

data included, the table is only intended to represent a snapshot summary of the

relative status of each program.

7. DEPARTMENT BUDGET

Budgetary information from FY 2011 through FY 2013 is displayed in the table

below, including subtotals for salaries, total payroll expenses, as well as the overall

operating cost:

Department Budget Trends (FY 2011-FY 2013)

Category 2011 2012 2013 3YR

Total Salaries $4,847,050 $4,738,717 $4,786,309 -1.3% Total Payroll Expenses $1,906,057 $2,501,783 $2,743,684 43.9% Total Operating Expenses $4,003,696 $3,925,238 $4,765,249 19.0% Total Budget $10,756,803 $11,165,739 $12,295,242 14.3%

• Total budgeted expenditures have risen by around 14.3% over the last three

years, corresponding to an increase of over $1.5 million. • Despite the fact that salary expenses have decrease slightly over the same time

period, the department has experienced a significant rise in total payroll expenditures, increasing by approximately 43.9%.

With the overall corrections budget growing by nearly 5% each year, the

budgetary situation of the department has recently experienced significant changes, as

evidenced by the last three years of available data.

8. MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL SERVICES

The following table provides the daily staffing plan provided by the contract

medical provider, PrimeCare, Inc.



Position

M

TU

W

TH

F

SA

SU

Hrs/Wk

Health Svcs Admin. 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - - - - - - - 40 Medical Director - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 Physician Assistant 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Psychiatrist 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Mental Health Professional - - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Dentist - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Nurse Supervisor 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - - - - - - - 40 Nurse (RN) - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - 8 - - - - - - - 40 Nurse (LPN) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 168 Medical Assistant 8 - - 8 - - 8 8 - 8 – - 8 – - - - - - - - 48 Total Weekly 365

Medical staffing at the facility, by position, is provided in the table below:

Personnel Category

FTE

Hours per Week Health Services Administrator (RN) 1.00 40.00 Medical Director (Physician) 0.05 2.00 Physician Assistant/Nurse Practitioner 0.20 8.00 Psychiatrist (PA) 0.075 3.00 Mental Health Professional 0.2 8.00 Dentist 0.2 8.00 Nurse Supervisor (RN/LPN) 1.00 40.00 Nurse (RN) 1.00 40.00 Nurse (LPN) 4.20 168.00 Staff Medical Assistant 1.20 48.00 Total Staff 9.125 365.00



3. RESULTS OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

As part of the Matrix Consulting Group’s effort to maximize input into the

management, staffing and operations study of Rockingham County’s Department of

Corrections, the project team conducted three days of interviews with staff in housing

units. To further input into the study the project team utilized an anonymous survey of

all employees. This report summarizes the responses received.

1. INTRODUCTION In January, the project team arranged with the Department of Corrections (DOC)

for the distribution of the employee survey. The response rate was disappointing for

this survey – less than 20% of employees responded. Typically for studies like this

response rate generally exceed 60%. As the results of the survey demonstrate, there

are many issues between labor and management that could affect the response rate. A

response rate this low could call into question how representative the survey is of

overall perspectives. Because the survey results correspond to the many interviews

which the project team conducted we believe that the survey is representative of overall

views. These issues are discussed in this summary.

Most of the survey was structured in the form of multiple choices to various

statements about operations, staffing and management which range from strongly

disagree to strongly agree as follows:

• 1: Strongly Disagree (SD in the tables) • 2: Disagree (D in the tables) • 3: Neutral (N in the tables)



• 4: Agree (A in the tables) • 5: Strongly Agree (SA in the tables) • No Response (NR in the tables) This summary categorizes the survey questions by subject matter, provides the

quantitative results to each question, graphs these results and discusses the findings in

each of these categories. The graphs that accompany each table are interesting – they

display the distribution of responses to each question in the group. If the responses are

more heavily weighted towards disagreement with the statement, the ‘bar’ will appear as

if it has shifted closer to the left, and vice versa.

Written comments and open-ended responses were also used in the survey and

have been summarized according to topic.

2. OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT The largest group of questions, covering all topics related to operations and

support, is displayed in the table below:

# Statement SD D N SA SA NR Total

1 We operate the detention system in an efficient manner. 6 7 5 2 0 0 20

3 The cooperation with other justice agencies in the County is good. 1 3 6 4 2 4 20

14 The classification system is effective. 2 6 6 5 0 1 20

20 The DOC does a good job of managing the inmate population. 3 4 8 5 0 0 20

21 Our booking process is efficient. 3 7 7 1 0 2 20

22 We receive a quick response to requests for emergency repairs. 5 4 8 3 0 0 20

23 Our facilities are well maintained. 4 4 11 1 0 0 20

24 Our information systems meet our needs. 4 9 4 1 0 1 19



• Question #1 in the survey was an ‘overall perception’ question regarding the

efficiency of the management of the detention center. With 65% of the respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, this question was predominantly negative.

• A significant portion of Corrections Officers had neutral attitudes toward the

questions included in this group – an average of over one-third of respondents selected either ‘Neutral’ or ‘No Opinion’ for each question.

30%

5%

10%

15%

15%

25%

20%

21%

35%

15%

30%

20%

35%

20%

20%

47%

25%

50%

35%

40%

45%

40%

55%

26%

10%

20%

25%

25%

5%

15%

5%

5%

0%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1

3

14

20

21

22

23

24

Question #

Distribution of Responses Operations

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/No Response Agree Strongly Agree



• Only 2 officers believe that the detention system is operated in an efficient manner, which equates to about 10% of respondents.

In the written comments and responses, officers evaluated their own work highly

– particularly with respect to their jobs as Corrections Officers. Teamwork among line

staff was rated favorably, including during emergency situations. One respondent

praised the diversity of the DOC's staff, citing it as a key reason why officers are able to

deal effectively with the diversity of the inmate population housed in the facility.

Some types of equipment were also described as important factors. Officers

wrote that their ability to use non-lethal force devices (e.g., Tasers) is a key tool that

allows them to respond effectively to certain emergency situations. Corrections Officers

contended that the wide scope of discretionary authority vested to officers allows them

to perform more effectively in unexpected situations.

Another specific strength identified in the written responses is the Rockingham

County DOC's cooperation with other agencies, including those both within and outside

of the County.

Some officers complained that supervisors often pull staff off the block to perform

other tasks, and that they are frequently left alone as a result, creating officer safety

issues. Some of these ‘other tasks’ were for mundane, low priority activities (such as

getting coffee). Officer safety concerns tended to be limited to instances where less

than the minimum number of staff were present on the block at a given time. When

blocks are fully staffed respondents made no complaints regarding the possibility of

officer safety issues caused by any possible limitations to their ability to respond

appropriately to certain situations.



3. SERVICES A number of questions addressed the services provided by the Rockingham

County Department of Corrections, including alternatives to corrections, as outlined

below:


17 The DOC does a good job of providing programs for inmates. 2 0 6 12 0 0 20

18 There are adequate mental health services in the DOC to meet the needs of the inmates.

3 6 5 6 0 0 20

19 There are adequate medical services for inmates. 2 1 5 11 1 0 20

26 We make good use of alternatives to incarceration for pre-trial inmates. 3 5 7 1 2 1 19

27 We make good use of alternatives to incarceration for sentenced inmates. 2 4 7 5 1 1 20

10%

15%

10%

16%

10%

0%

30%

5%

26%

20%

30%

25%

25%

42%

40%

60%

30%

55%

5%

25%

0%

0%

5%

11%

5%

17

18

19

26

27

Question # Distribution of Responses

Services

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral / No Response Agree Strongly Agree



• Responses were largely positive about the services provided in the facility, with

more staff agreeing with the statements than in any other section of the survey – relating to medical and mental health services particularly.

• Regarding alternatives to incarceration, almost a majority of respondents

expressed neutral attitudes, with the rest split somewhat evenly between agreeing and disagree.

Six times as many officers agreed that the DOC does a good job of providing

programs to inmates than those who disagreed. While inmate medical services

received largely positive ratings, written comments indicated that medical staff do not

always coordinate the medication distribution with the general activity schedule of the

Center.

4. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION The following table covers the statements relating to the management and

administration of the department:


2 The communication throughout our Department is good. 6 13 1 0 0 0 20

4 Policies and procedures are complete and clear. 7 8 3 1 1 0 20

25 When I have a question about employee benefits it is answered quickly. 3 7 7 2 1 0 20



• Views regarding DOC management were predominantly negative. • No one agreed that communication in the Department is ‘good’, with only one

respondent selecting ‘neutral’, indicating very strong attitudes toward the subject. • The use of policies and procedures were similarly viewed very negatively. • A large percentage (35%) were neutral regarding the speed at which employee

benefits questions are answered, which could indicate that those employees have not directed such questions toward management.

Corresponding to the significant number of ‘strongly disagree’ responses, a large

number of written responses dealt with issues relating to management and

administration. Many of the comments centered around a few key themes. One of the

most common complaints cited a lack of leadership in the Department. Many regarded

the enforcement of policies as being highly inconsistent. Policies are often viewed to be

broken without consequence, even after other officers have brought the issue to the

attention of their supervisors. Insubordination, too, was frequently raised as an issue,

citing examples where officers have refused orders without receiving discipline. When

30%

35%

15%

65%

40%

35%

5%

15%

35%

0%

5%

10%

0%

5%

5%

2

4

25

Question #

Distribution of Responses Management and Administration




discipline is applied, it is often given to all officers, rather than just the officer(s) in

question.

Communication-related issues were also consistently brought up throughout the

written responses. A number of Corrections Officers claimed that insufficient information

is given to them on pertinent issues. Communication between officers and management

is not seen as a two-way street by many of the officers, who claim that there are

ineffective channels that allow them to bring up problems or suggestions with their

supervisors.

5. STAFFING Issues related to the staffing needs of the department are covered in the table

below:


5 The DOC operates with an appropriate number of staff. 16 3 1 0 0 0 20

6 We have an adequate number of staff to meet the requirements of the fixed post staffing plan.

13 7 0 0 0 0 20

7 I am often pulled off my current assignment to cover other duties. 2 0 5 9 4 0 20

8 We have the staff we need to perform safely. 10 8 2 0 0 0 20



• None of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DOC operates with

enough staff to meet minimum requirements. • Nearly all respondents contended that they were often pulled off of their normal

assignments – indicating that minimum staffed rules may not always be strictly adhered to.

The sentiments expressed in the written comments and open-ended response

sections agree with the responses to these questions, in addition to raising a few

additional issues – among them wages (at the time of the survey Corrections Officers

were outside of a contract for years) and training, as described in the next section of this

summary.

6. TRAINING Issues relating to both officer and supervisory training were highlighted in the

following set of statements:

80%

65%

10%

50%

15%

35%

0%

40%

5%

0%

25%

10%

0%

0%

45%

0%

0%

0%

20%

0%

5

6

7

8

Question #

Distribution of Responses Staffing





10 I receive the practical training I need to keep my skill level high. 9 4 4 2 1 0 20

11 Our Department places a high value on ensuring proper training for field personnel.

9 6 4 0 1 0 20

12 There are adequate opportunities to attend training classes. 11 5 2 2 0 0 20

13 Our Department provides adequate managerial and supervisory training. 11 5 2 1 0 1 20

• Responses to this section were almost universally negative, with between 65%

and 80% of Corrections Officers disagreeing with each statement. • Responses indicate that officers very strongly believe that there are inadequate

training opportunities in the Department. Open-ended responses echoed the sentiments expressed in the multiple-choice

fields, as well. Corrections Officers cited a lack of training. Survey respondents claim

that this increases their vulnerability to being manipulated by the inmates, as well as

presenting possible officer safety concerns overall. When new technology is

45%

45%

55%

55%

20%

30%

25%

25%

20%

20%

10%

15%

10%

0%

10%

5%

5%

5%

0%

0%

10

11

12

13

Question #

Distribution of Responses Training




implemented, Corrections Officers claimed that inadequate training is given to them to

be able to use it effectively. Supervisor training was also was cited as being deficient,

often consisting only of informal shadowing of another supervisor.

7. WORKLOAD

Survey respondents were also asked to rate their overall workload according to

one of four options:

Response Option # %

A About the right balance between time available and the amount of work. 5 25.0%

B I could handle more work without being overloaded. 0 0.0%

C I am always overloaded. I can never catch up. 2 10.0%

D Sometimes my workload is heavy, but most of the time I can keep up. 13 65.0%

TOTAL 20 100.0% Only 10% of respondents claimed that their workload is constantly overloaded,

while another 25% of them categorized their workload as being generally balanced and

65% stating that workloads were only sometimes ‘heavy’. The response to this question

starkly contrast with statements regarding the perceived need for additional staff.

8. CONCLUSION The results of this survey are overwhelmingly negative. Overall, half of the

respondents did not identify any strengths in the Department. Particular concerns

expressed related to each aspect of Department management which was asked in the

survey as well as how operations are managed.



4. RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY

This document provides a summary of a comparative survey conducted by the

project team which examined uses of alternatives to incarceration among counties in

New Hampshire.

1. INTRODUCTION As part of our study for the Rockingham County Department of Corrections, our

project team has conducted a comparative survey of similar agencies located

throughout New Hampshire. The survey, which focused on various types of alternatives

to incarceration, is designed to highlight an array of viable options for expanding these

alternatives. After working closely with the project steering committee, the comparative

survey was designed to include Cheshire County, Strafford County, Merrimack County,

Hillsborough County, Sullivan County, and Rockingham County when applicable. After

contacting the corrections agencies in these counties and receiving responses from

each of them, this information was combined with own research, and developed into a

matrix. The following sections each cover one aspect of jail services and community

corrections, using similar approaches to document the similarities and contrasting

elements between the different counties.

The following table summarizes the basic descriptive information regarding each

of the counties included in the survey, including population and median household

income:



County Population Median Household Income

Cheshire 76,851 $56,062 Merrimack 146,761 $65,487 Hillsborough 402,922 $64,925 Strafford 124,119 $58,535 Sullivan 43,074 $53,821 Rockingham 297,820 $77,939 AVG 181,925 $62,795

• The population of Rockingham County is approximately 63.7% greater than the

average for cities included in the survey, 181,925. • Rockingham County is also comparatively wealthier than its counterparts, with a

median household income that is about 24.1% higher than the group average. Despite these differences, the selected counties provide the closest similarity to

Rockingham County in the state of New Hampshire, which provides far more relevant

comparison than if out-of-state counties were included in the survey.

2. JAIL OVERVIEW (1) Jail Population The table below provides a summary overview of the jail and detention facilities

operated by each county, including the average daily population (ADP) of inmates:

County 2013 ADP ADP / Pop. Pre-Trial* Sentenced* Male* Female*

Cheshire 122 1.59 99 19 80.7% 19.4% Merrimack 183 1.25 96 87 152 31 Hillsborough 642 1.59 322 320 NR NR Strafford 340 2.74 312 28 275.0 79.0 Sullivan 106 2.46 NR NR 90.7 15.3 Rockingham 385 1.29 172.7 130 336.6 48.0 AVG 296.3 1.8 200.3 116.8 82.9% 17.1%

• *It should be noted that in the gender and sentence status columns, the values

for Rockingham and Cheshire counties refer to 2012 statistics. • With about 57.1% of its inmate population comprised by pre-trial defendants,

Rockingham County is somewhat in the middle of the group in this regard.



• Rockingham County has the second-highest average daily inmate population of

the group, and the second-lowest rate of inmates per 1,000 population (1.29). • While the proportions of males and females varies only by a minor degree

between each jail, Rockingham County narrowly has the highest percentage of male inmates.

Although the agencies included in this comparison seem to vary greatly between

one another– with ADP numbers from 122 to 642– their similarity is far more evident in

terms of the scope and number of programs they offer, as the subsequent sections will

demonstrate.

(2) Staffing Levels Overall staffing levels for each agency are compared in the following pair of

tables, the first of which focuses on mostly sworn staff, while the second includes

administrative, programmatic, and support staff:

County Dir. / Supt.

Maj. / Asst. Supt.

Cpt. Div. Dir. Lt. Sgt. Cpl. CO TOTAL

Cheshire 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 57 (Only

total # avail.)

58

Merrimack 2 – 3 3 1 5 11 90 140 Hillsborough 1 – 3 – 9 12 – 108 144 Strafford 1 1 – – 4 5 5 50 73 Sullivan 1 – 1 – 1 4 6 27 52 Rockingham 1 1 – – 4 6 6 58 76 AVG 1.2 1.0 2.3 3.0 3.8 6.4 7.0 66.6 90.5



County Program Staff Administrative Staff

Cheshire

- 1 Director of Safety and Security - 1 Corrections Director of Inmate Programs - 1 Classification Supervisor - 1 Mental Health Clinician - 1 Case Manager - 1.3 Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor (LADAC)

- 1 Secretary - 1 Receptionist - 1 Director of Maintenance - 1 General Maintenance - 1 Medical Services Coordinator - 2 LPN - 2.4 Per Diem LPN - 0.16 Physicians Assistant - 1 Dietary manager - 2.8 Cook Supervisor - 1.6 Cook - 0.2 Dietitian

Merrimack - 10 Medical Staff (total) - 3 Food Services Staff (total) - 8 Programming Staff (total)

3 (total)

Hillsborough 4 (total) 42 (total)

Strafford

- 1 Programming Coordinator Director - 1 Sr. Case Manager/Correctional Officer - 1 Case Manager/Correctional Officer

- 1 Admin Assist. - “Numerous contract employees”

Sullivan

- 1 Program Director - 4 Clinical Staff (total) - 2 Case Manager

- 2 Administrative Secretaries

Rockingham

- 1 Mental Health Coordinator - 1 Drug and Alcohol Counselor - 1 Education Coordinator - 1 Security Clerk - 1 Head Nurse (contract) - 5.2 Nurse (contract) - 1 Medical Assistant (contract)

- 1 Business Office Supervisor - 1 Administrative Assistant - 2 Accountant (1 Temp., 1 FT)

• At 6.63 corrections officers per inmate (by average daily population),

Rockingham is significantly above the group average, which is at approximately 5.07.

• To this point, not every county appears to employ a drug and alcohol counselor–

which Rockingham County does have. • Only one other agency in the group currently has the position of Major/Assistant

Superintendent • In terms of the ratio of sergeants to corrections officers, Rockingham County

(9.7:1) is just slightly below the group average of 10.7:1. Although the variations in the way that the detailed staffing breakdowns are

reported makes the comparison somewhat limited in scope, one of the most noticeable



differences among the counties is the number (if any) of authorized food services and

nutrition staff, which vary widely. Beyond this, however, the comparison appears to

indicate a high level of staffing available for Rockingham’s jail and detention services.

(3) Medical and Mental Health Services The following table compares the medical and mental health services provided

by each county, including whether or not they are contracted outside of the county jail:

Contracted / In-House Provider Name Cost

Cheshire NR NR NR

Merrimack Medical in-house, dental contracted

Medical and mental health services are done in-house with County staff. Dental is provided by a local dentist

$18,708.25 (2013)

Hillsborough Contracted out NR $195,101 Strafford Not contracted out NR NR

Sullivan Contracted out Multiple (detail below)

Dental: Dr. William Pamplin ($6482) Pharmacy: Westwood ($50,224) Mental Health: West Central Services ($17,787) Physician: Dr. Lawrence Schissel ($14,556)

Rockingham Contracted out PrimeCare $144,346 • 2 out of the 5 responding agencies report that they do not contract their medical

services out, although 3 out of 5 counties do contract out their dental services. • The average cost of these services is approximately $111,801– about $32,545

less than what Rockingham pays. It is unclear from this comparison, however, how the location of each jail impacts

these costs, as well as the specific details of the plans offered by the outside firms that

have been contracted.



3. PRETRIAL RELEASE (1) Introduction Pretrial release programs are utilized throughout the country as an important

alternative to incarceration for defendant inmates that meet a certain set of criteria,

although their implementation can often vary extensively between agencies. Common

among pretrial release programs, however, is the shared objective of reducing jail

populations with a minimal– or even positive– impact on public safety. As a result,

eligibility for these programs is often determined by a number of factors that relate to the

overall risk and needs of an inmate. Depending on the program, pretrial release can be

offered in lieu of bail, or even as a condition of it. Other practices, such as the level(s) of

supervision given to program participants vary extensively between agencies.

(2) Program Organization and Processes While Rockingham has just implemented a new pretrial release program

involving both the Department of Corrections and the Sheriff’s Office, the corrections

agencies of Hillsborough, Strafford, and Sullivan counties have operated such programs

for years. The following table compares the basic organization of pretrial release in

these counties, as well as the process of assignment to each program, and the current

systems of oversight in place:



County Department Primary Focus of Program Assignment Process Criminal justice

system oversight

Hillsborough

Court Services / Department of Corrections

Pretrial supervision; Also functions as a diversion program

Works in connection with Community Connections Mental Health Court Project (CCMHCP)

No formal process of oversight by criminal justice system

Strafford Department of Corrections Pretrial supervision

Combination of court assignment and DOC recommendation

Unknown

Sullivan Court / Department of Corrections

Pretrial supervision Judicial order

Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, judicial oversight through sentencing orders, Probation & Parole

• Within the group, Hillsborough's PTR program is unique in that it also functions

as a diversion program. • Pretrial release in Sullivan County is the only program that is known to the project

team to have a formal review process involving the criminal justice system. This does, however, exclude Merrimack County (not shown), whose program is organized directly under the County Attorney's Office.

It should be noted that Cheshire county does operate pretrial diversion functions,

however, no information could be obtained from them regarding these programs.

(3) Participant Eligibility and Risk Assessment The following table offers a comparison of the different factors for program

eligibility in each county, as well as any risk assessment tools that are used in this

process:

County Risk assessment tool used?

Developed outside or in-house?

Is it a point-based system?

Hillsborough Yes ORAS Yes

Strafford Yes Developed in-house by agency Unknown

Sullivan Yes NIC Classification Yes



County Hillsborough Strafford Sullivan

Sentence status Pretrial only Pretrial only Pretrial only

Charges X (No violent felony or sexual offenses allowed) X NR

Prior FTAs – X NR Outstanding warrants X – NR

Bail amount – – NR Non-residency X – NR

Other

- Must have sponsor, suitable housing - Positive behavior - Must not be a high or above risk inmate (according to the results of the risk assessment tool)

– NR

• Each of the agencies with a pretrial release program administer a formal risk

assessment tool in order to determine the risks and needs of program participants.

• Only Strafford County uses a risk assessment tool that was developed within the

agency – Hillsborough and Sullivan counties, by contrast, both utilize research-validated tools that are used nationally.

While there are many differences in how each of the three counties select and/or

screen for possible program participants, our project team finds that they are largely

similar in this regard, with risk assessment tools functioning as a key component of this

process.

(4) Program Fees The following chart documents the fee schedule for the programs in each county,

organized into four separate categories:

County Intake Periodic Testing Other

Hillsborough None Tied to inmate's income and expenses (roughly 25% of weekly earnings)

Fixed fee assessed

Cost of providing electronic monitoring equipment (not fixed amount)

Strafford None None $10.00 $100.00 (equipment) Sullivan None None None No fees assessed by DOC



• As Sullivan County assess no fees to program participants, the costs associated with the program are funded by either the county or through special grants.

• By contrast, Hillsborough and Strafford counties employ a cost-covering model

for charging fees, requiring participants to make significant reimbursements to the county.

When examining how fees are assessed to program participants in the surveyed

counties, there appear to be two extreme models being followed by counties, whereas

one charges clients significant and often earnings-based fees, while the other operates

at either very little or no cost to the clients served by the program.

(5) Policies and Supervision The next chart compares whether or not each county incorporates supervision

through electronic monitoring or conducts field visits as part of program requirements, in

addition to the current drug testing policy:

County Electronic Monitoring Field Visits Urinary Analysis?

Hillsborough Yes (Both equipment and monitoring are contracted out)

Yes Yes

Strafford Yes Yes As ordered by court or participant needs.

Sullivan No No Color coded based on assessment

• Policies regarding mandated screening for drugs and alcohol vary extensively

between the three counties; however, all feature strict testing procedures. • It is worth noting that the same counties that incorporate electronic monitoring

into their pretrial release programs also conduct field visits– this is often an important part of successful electronic monitoring operations.

The variation in drug testing policies among the surveyed counties indicates that

while urinary analysis functions are an integral component of pretrial release programs,

there are several different approaches to the area.



(6) Program Trends The following table displays recent program trend information for the three

counties with DOC pretrial release programs:

County 2013 Total Participants

2013 Successful

Completions

Current # of Participants

Any Changes Planned?

Hillsborough 31 17 4 None / No Response Strafford 386 201 109 None / No Response Sullivan NR NR NR None / No Response AVG 208.5 109 56.5 –

It is clear that, given the large numbers of participants, as well as the lack of any

changes being considered, pretrial release programs are currently one of the most

popular and effective alternatives to incarceration among a number of comparable New

Hampshire counties. Notably, however, the successful completion rates displayed in the

table above are much lower than comparable figures for other community corrections

programs.

4. PRETRIAL DIVERSION (1) Introduction Diversion programs, like pretrial release, take place before the offender is

convicted or acquitted of a crime. Typically, in exchange for completing a set list of

requirements over a certain period of time– during which time the prosecution generally

delays moving the case forward– the offender may avoid prosecuted entirely. These

requirements may include supervision, fines, community service, or rehabilitation

programs or classes. The offender, of course, must first meet a certain set of criteria,

which often excludes those with a prior criminal history, non-residents, violent felony

charges, and so forth.



It is also worth noting the key difference between what is considered a 'general'

pretrial diversion program versus a drug or mental health court program. In many

counties across the nation and within New Hampshire, these programs are organized

entirely separately, and are often operated by different organizations. Merrimack

County, for example, has four different diversion programs, with one of them being a

drug court program. By contrast, Strafford, Sullivan, and Rockingham counties each

have one program. As Hillsborough's pretrial release program also functions as a

diversion program, its information has been duplicated for this section. No information

could be obtained relating to Cheshire County, however.

(2) Participant Eligibility and Risk Assessment All of the programs, excluding that of Strafford County, feature an assignment

process that takes place entirely on the judicial side of the matter. It should be noted,

however, that in Rockingham County, an additional review takes place within the

Department of Corrections after the initial referral has been made.

The following table provides a comparison of the various factors involved in

determining an individual's eligibility for each county's program, 's addition to any formal

risk assessment instruments that are used in this process:



County Program Name Primary Excluders Risk Assessment Tool Used?

Merrimack

Adult Misdemeanor (A&B) Diversion Sentence status No / Unknown

Violation Diversion Must be first time offender or full-time employment/student

No / Unknown

Adult Felony Diversion

Must be first time offender, full-time employment/student

No / Unknown

FAST Program Must be first time offender, full-time employment/student

No / Unknown

Strafford Unknown Must be alcohol or marijuana offense Must be first time offender

Yes (Developed within agency)

Sullivan Unknown

No violent offense No prior criminal history outside of any motor violations, as well as up to one class B misdemeanor No outstanding warrants

No / Unknown

Rockingham Unknown

Charges not related to substance abuse (although certain felonies are excluded) Only certain charges Prior FTAs Non-residency

No / Unknown

• As the table demonstrates, risk assessment instruments tend not to be as central

to assignment processes in diversion programs as they are in pretrial release functions, where the courts and/or other agencies must screen from a more generalized population.

• Diversion programs, by contrast, tend to be highly specialized by charge type

and criminal history, greatly limiting the range of defendants that may be considered for the program.

• For example, by limiting participating in diversion to only first time offenders, as in

the case of the Merrimack County programs, any possible risks are significantly mitigated.

It is unclear whether or not the low response rate regarding risk assessment tool

usage is due to this process being organized under a different agency– most likely the

courts– rather than there being a lack of risk assessment instrument usage in itself.



(4) Program Fees The fee schedule for the programs in each county are displayed below,

organized by category:

County Program Name Intake Periodic Testing Other Community

Service Component

Merrimack

Adult Misdemeanor (A&B) Diversion

$400.00 – – – –

Violation Diversion – – – – Adult Felony Diversion $475.00 – – – $250.00

FAST Program $375.00 – – – –

Strafford Unknown $0.00 $0.00

$10.00 (If additional

testing needed)

$0.00 $0.00

Sullivan Unknown – – – None from DOC

None from DOC

Rockingham Pre-Trial Diversion $0.00 $38 / mo $0.00 $0.00 – Significant differences exist within the group regarding the fines assessed to

program participants– while Merrimack County's programs charge offenders several

hundred dollars in order to be able to complete the program, Strafford and Sullivan do

not typically charge any fees. The high fees assessed by Merrimack County, however,

should not be thought of as a cost recovery tactic, as the proceeds for these diversion

fees typically circumvent DOC funds.

5. WORK RELEASE (1) Introduction Work release programs, primarily targeted sentenced offenders, offer inmates

the opportunity to avoid or reduce their time spent incarcerated in exchange for

participation in the program. In these programs, participants often agree to live in a

transition home, where they must report back each night and stay drug and alcohol free,



as they either look for a job or work at their current place of employment. These

policies, of course, vary between each program.

(2) Program Organization and Processes The following table compares the department that each program is organized

under, its primary focus and process of assignment, as well as any oversight placed

over the program involving the criminal justice system:

County Program Name Department Participant

Profile Assignment Process

Cheshire (PR) Partial Release Department of Corrections Sentenced Staff review and

recommendation

Cheshire (WR) Work Release Department of Corrections Sentenced Judicial order

Merrimack Work Release Department of Corrections Sentenced Judicial order

Hillsborough Work Release Department of Corrections Sentenced Staff review and

recommendation

Strafford Work Release Department of Corrections Sentenced Staff review and

recommendation

Sullivan Work Search / Work Release Program

Department of Corrections Sentenced

Combination– judicial order, with classification by program staff

Rockingham Work Release Department of Corrections Staff review and

recommendation

County Criminal justice system (Y/N)

Regular review process (Y/N) Who is involved?

Cheshire (PR) Yes No Offender Review Board Cheshire (WR) Yes – Court Merrimack Yes No Overseen by DOC Hillsborough No No N/A Strafford NR NR NR

Sullivan Yes Yes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee; Judicial oversight through sentencing orders, as well as Probation and Parole

Rockingham Yes Yes Overseen by DOC Among the group of counties included in the survey, the basic set-up and format

of work release programs varies insignificantly. A possible exception to this, however,

would be the process of assignment, in which the majority of counties assign



participants either through staff review and recommendation or a combination that

includes judicial orders.

(3) Participant Eligibility and Risk Assessment A number of factors are often involved in determining an individual's eligibility for

work release programs, including the use of risk assessment tools, as illustrated in the

following table:

County Risk

Assessment Tool Used?

Nationally Validated? Point System? Primary Excluders

Cheshire (PR) Yes Ohio Risk Assessment

System (ORAS) Yes NR

Cheshire (WR) Yes Ohio Risk Assessment

System (ORAS) Yes NR

Merrimack Yes NR NR

- Sentence Status - Charges - Prior FTAs - Outstanding Warrants - Bail Amount - Non-residency - Any other court orders

Hillsborough Yes Operational Risk Management System Yes

- Violent felony charges - Sexual abuse crimes - Outstanding warrants

Strafford Yes Developed by agency NR - Sentence status

Sullivan Yes NIC classification NR - Certain felony charges - Non-residency - Disciplinary history

Rockingham Yes Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Yes

- Sentence Status - Charges - Prior FTAs - Outstanding Warrants - Bail Amount - Non-residency - Any other court orders

• All programs utilize a risk assessment tool around to classify and/or screen

participants. • Many programs exclude violent and/or sex offenders, although certain other

types of felonies are allowed. It is evident that a wide variety of risk assessment tools are used within the group

– the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) is the only instrument used by more than



one county. Most programs, however, have selected research-validated assessment

tools that have been developed outside of their agency.

(4) Program Fees The following table outlines the fee schedules for programs in each county,

organized into several different categories:

County Intake Periodic Testing Other Cheshire (PR) – – – –

Cheshire (WR) – – – Reimburse state for

board and care Merrimack – % of weekly salary – –

Hillsborough – Tied to inmate's income and expenses

Fixed fee assessed –

Strafford – Wage percentage –

Sullivan – 33.3% of net earnings for room & board $20 / month –

Rockingham N/A 2 hours of pay per day N/A N/A As opposed to the implementation of a fixed fee schedule for participants, the

dominant trend across the work release programs included in the survey appears to be

the use of a scaling, earnings-based fee. By requiring participants to pay only when they

have found employment and are earning money, the program does not generate

additional financial hardship for those who are having difficulty locating work.

(5) Policies and Supervision The following table compares each county regarding whether or not they

incorporate supervision through electronic monitoring, conduct field visits as a required

condition of successful program completion, as well as their drug testing policy:



County Electronic Monitoring

EM Contracted or In-House Field Visits? Urinary

Analysis? Cheshire (PR) NR NR NR NR Cheshire (WR) NR NR NR NR

Merrimack Rarely utilized NR Yes Frequent and random

Hillsborough Yes Contracted out (both equipment and monitoring)

Yes Once per week (at a minimum)

Strafford No N/A Yes Frequent; random

Sullivan NR NR Yes Random Rockingham Rarely utilized Contracted Yes Yes

• Electronic monitoring does not appear to have widespread use in work release

programs, as field visits evidently constitute the primary method of supervising participants assigned to the program.

• The frequency is drug testing work release participants suggests a high number

of those assigned to the program have been convicted or charged with an offense related to either drugs or alcohol.

It is not surprising that electronic monitoring is seldom used in work release

programs, given the well-documented detrimental effects that wearing electronic

monitoring equipment has on an offender’s ability to find and maintain work. As a result,

it could be possible that adding an electronic monitoring work release component

inherently limits the success of participants in the program.



(6) Program Trends The following table displays the available data regarding general program

statistics in several work release programs:

County 2013 Participants 2013 Successful Completions Current #'s Changes Being

Considered

Cheshire (PR) 5 3 2 Nothing / No Response

Cheshire (WR) 14 Nothing / No Response

Merrimack 7 7 2 Nothing at this time

Hillsborough 92 (total for AHC,

Day Reporting, and Work Release)

76 (total for AHC, Day Reporting, and

Work Release) 0 Nothing / No

Response

Strafford 10 1 Nothing / No Response

Sullivan 29 in Work Search, 20 in Work Release Nothing / No

Response Rockingham 12

• Work release programs appear to have a relatively high rate of success. • The programs also seem to be very small– other than Hillsborough, none of the

programs represent close to 10% of their jail’s average daily population. Given that work release is almost always a program for sentenced inmates, the

programs tend to rely heavily on the consistency of assignments being made by the

court system, which can often be variable in nature.

6. COMMUNITY SERVICE Community service, while not always a program in itself, is often related to the

functions of community corrections programs. Frequently, programs such as work

release or pretrial diversion will include a requirement for participants to complete a

certain number of community service hours. Community service programs can be used

as a form of public restitution, a means of providing discounted labor to the county

and/or other agencies, or even simply a way to generate value to the community. Given

the wide range of programs and participants that provide community service, there is



extensive variation between the different counties in relation to the overall organization,

design and policies of these programs.

(1) Program Organization and Processes The following table compares the department that each program is organized

under, its primary focus and process of assignment, as well as any oversight placed

over the program involving the criminal justice system:

County Department Primary Focus

Criminal Justice System

Oversight? (Y/N)

Regular Review

Process? (Y/N)

Who is involved?

Assignment Process

Merrimack Department of Corrections

Sentenced Yes No Overseen by DOC

Staff review and recommendation

Hillsborough Department of Corrections

Sentenced No No N/A Staff review and recommendation

Strafford Department of Corrections

Pre-Trial and Sentenced

Combination

Sullivan Department of Corrections

Sentenced Yes

Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, Judicial through sentencing orders, Probation & Parole

Staff review and recommendation

• Rockingham County has been excluded from this comparison, as its community

service functions are covered entirely in the work release section. The County Attorney’s Office has had a community service component for its diversion program.

• Only Strafford County includes pretrial defendants in its community service

functions– in other counties, the programs are comprised entirely of sentenced offenders.

• Likewise, participants are assigned in each of these counties through staff review

and recommendations, whereas Strafford County's community service program more closely functions as a means of carrying out court-ordered community service terms.



It is clear from these differences in basic programmatic structure that community

service functions should not be examined in the same way as more universally

analogous programs, such as pretrial release or pretrial diversion.

(2) Participant Eligibility and Risk Assessment The following table covers differences in the screening processes for the

community service programs covered in this section:

County Risk


Validated Nationally?

Point System? Primary Excluders

Merrimack Yes NR No

- Sentence status - Charges Prior FTAs - Outstanding Warrants - Bail Amount - Non-residency - Other court orders

Hillsborough No N/A N/A - Violent felony charges - Sexual abuse crimes

Strafford Yes Developed by

agency

NR - Medical reasons

Sullivan Yes NIC classification Yes

- Sentence status - Prior FTAs - Non-residency - Discipline history

• It is unclear why bail amount was included by Merrimack county as a factor for

exclusion, as the program is limited to sentenced offenders. • It is becoming evident that agencies tend to use a standard risk assessment tool

for all of the programs that they offer, rather than use specialized approaches for individual assignments.

Many of the reasons for program ineligibility listed in the table above match those

for other programs in each county, suggesting that community corrections program

assignments are not tiered by different levels of offender risk (e.g., certain offenders go

to work release, while less severe ones go to community service, etc.).



(3) Program Fees The table below displays fee information for each of the programs, organized into

four categories:

County Intake Periodic Testing Other

Merrimack – – – None

Hillsborough – Tied to inmate's income and expenses

Fixed fee assessed –

Strafford N/A / NR N/A / NR N/A / NR N/A / NR Sullivan – – – None

Interestingly, Hillsborough County operates the only community service program

that assesses any type of fees to its participants– Merrimack, Strafford, and Sullivan

counties do not.

(4) Supervision and Policies The following table compares the surveyed counties regarding the utilization of

electronic monitoring technology in community service functions, whether or not field

visits are conducted, and the policy for drug testing:

County Electronic Monitoring?

EM Contracted or In-House

Field Visits? Urinary Analysis?

Merrimack Yes (Contracted) Contracted Yes Yes– UA is conducted

frequently and randomly Hillsborough NR Yes Yes

Strafford No Yes

Yes– UA is conducted as ordered by the court (or participant needs, when applicable)

Sullivan NR

Yes (for individual participants); Work crews are supervised by staff for the designated activity)

Yes– UA is conducted at random

Rockingham Yes In house Yes Yes • Even though Merrimack County does not assess fees for its community service

program, it does utilize electronic monitoring technology – a traditionally expensive form of supervision to operate.



• The Sullivan County program appears to include incarcerated inmates, as opposed to purely functioning as an alternative to incarceration.

While the use of electronic monitoring varies, field visits and mandatory drug

testing of program participants appear to be unanimously practiced by the counties

included in this comparison.

(5) Staffing and Program Trends The following two tables present the available data covering both staffing and

overall program trends for community service programs:

County Sworn Non-sworn Administrative TOTAL

Merrimack 1 Corrections Officer 0 1 Clerical 2 Hillsborough NR NR NR NR Strafford 0 4 0 4 Sullivan NR NR NR NR

County 2013

Participants 2013 Successful

Completions Current #'s Changes Being Considered

Merrimack 14 14 22 Improving internal operations

Hillsborough 21 NR NR Nothing / No Response

Strafford 172 ? ? Nothing / No Response

Sullivan NR 880 hours of inmate work crew provided to community service projects

NR Nothing / No Response

The low staffing and total participation numbers displayed by the majority of

community service programs outlined in the tables above suggest that community

service programs are not widely viewed as being important, or possibly even as

effective, alternatives to incarceration in comparison with other leading program types.



7. OTHER (1) Introduction The last category covered by the comparative survey, labeled as "Other",

encompasses a wide range of community corrections programs, including mental health

courts, day reporting centers, electronic monitoring programs, and administrative home

confinement, as well as several others. Given that each these programs only exist in a

few of the counties, it is necessary to aggregate them into a more specialized

comparison.

(2) Electronic Monitoring Programs The focuses of these programs do vary, however. As this survey has shown,

electronic monitoring is not always organized as a separate program, as with

community service. Regardless, electronic monitoring allows counties to provide

enhanced supervision, functioning as an alternative to incarceration.

The following tables compare the different electronic monitoring programs in the

comparative survey group, using the same comparisons as before:

County What is the program? Department Pre-Trial Judicial order

Cheshire Electronic Monitoring program

Both Pretrial (48.61%) and Sentenced (51.39%)

NR

Hillsborough Administrative Home Confinement

Department of Corrections Sentenced Staff review and

recommendation

Strafford (PTP) Post-Trial Programming

Department of Corrections

Both Pretrial and Sentenced

Combination / other

Strafford (AHC) Administrative Home Confinement

Department of Corrections Sentenced Judicial Order

Sullivan EM / Community Intervention Program (CIP)

Department of Corrections Sentenced

Jud order/Supt & Classification, Program assessment

Rockingham Electronic Monitoring

Department of Corrections Sentenced Staff review and

recommendation



County Risk


Nationally Validated? Point System? Primary Excluders

Cheshire Yes Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Yes NR

Hillsborough Yes Operational Risk Management System Yes

- Violent felony charges - Sexual abuse crimes - Outstanding warrants

Strafford (PTP) Yes Developed by agency NR NR Strafford (AHC) NR NR NR NR

Sullivan Yes LSI-R Risk/Needs Assessment Yes

- Non-compliance with program guidelines - Notification to court

Rockingham Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)

County 2013 Participants 2013 Successful

Completions Current #'s Any Planned Changes?

Cheshire 72 NR NR Nothing / No Response

Hillsborough 92 (total for AHC,

Day Reporting, and Work Release)


Work Release) 14 Nothing / No

Response

Strafford (PTP) 160 93 106 Nothing / No Response

Strafford (AHC) NR NR 72 Nothing / No Response

Sullivan 420; 68 41; 30 30 Community Intervention Program (CIP)

Rockingham 19 Nothing / No Response

• Interaction between community corrections staff and the courts appear to factor

more heavily into electronic monitoring assignment than in other types of programs.

• Risk assessment instruments appear to play a central role in the assignment and

handling of electronic monitoring cases, as evidenced by the widespread use of research-validated tools.

In comparison with many of the other alternatives to incarceration that have been

outlined in the comparative survey, many of the electronic monitoring programs appear

to handle much higher numbers of participants than other jail alternatives programs in

their respective counties. It is unclear, however, whether this is due to differences in the



average lengths of stay between program types, or whether this is truly indicative of

electronic monitoring’s relative effectiveness as an alternative to incarceration.

(3) Day Reporting Centers and Mental Health Courts Day reporting centers, which are closely similar to work release programs, serve

as an additional alternative to incarceration. Other types of community corrections

programs, such as mental health courts and drug rehabilitation programs, while

achieving the same objective, focus primarily on the reduction of recidivism in certain

types of offenders (e.g., those with substance abuse disorders).

The following tables compare the different day reporting centers and mental

health court programs in the comparative survey group, using the same comparisons as

before:

County What is the program? Department

Primary Focus of Program

Assignment Process

Cheshire (Alt. Sentencing & MH Court)

Alternative Sentencing and Mental Health Court

NR Both Pretrial and Sentenced Judicial order

Merrimack (MH Court) Mental Health Court

Department of Corrections (Collaborative committee)

Sentenced Mental Health Court determination

Hillsborough (Day Rept.) Day Reporting NR NR

Strafford (ARC)

ARC (Addictions Rehabilitation Center) Program

Department of Corrections / Southeastern New Hampshire Services

Sentenced Judicial order

Sullivan (TRAILS) TRAILS Department of

Corrections Sentenced Staff review and recommendation



County Risk


Nationally Validated?

Point System? Primary Excluders


Yes “Standardized assessment”

“Standardized assessment”

Only the following: - Substance abuse disorder - Mental health disorder - Non-violent felony charges (on a case-by-case basis) - Domestic violence charges (also on a case-by-case basis)

Merrimack (MH Court) Yes NR NR

- Sentence status - Charges - Prior FTAs - Outstanding warrants - Bail amount - Non-residency - Prior mental health history

Hillsborough (Day Rept.) Yes

Operational Risk Management System

Yes NR

Strafford (ARC) NR NR

Program only includes inmates with “serious” chemical dependency issues

Sullivan (TRAILS) Yes

LSI-R Risk/Needs Assessment

Yes Program only includes inmates with “serious” chemical dependency issues

County 2013 Total

Participants 2013 Successful

Completions Current #'s Any Changes Planned?


NR NR NR Nothing / No Response

Merrimack (MH Court) 25 12 25 Nothing at this time

Hillsborough (Day Rept.)


Work Release)

76 (total for AHC, Day Reporting,

and Work Release)

10 Nothing / No Response

Strafford (ARC) NR NR NR Nothing / No Response

Sullivan (TRAILS) 111 89 NR Nothing / No Response

• Although risk assessment tools are widely practiced in many of these programs,

they do not seem as central to the participant screening process as was the case for electronic monitoring programs

• This is evidenced by the fact that several of the counties that use research-

validated screening tools for other programs they offer do not use these same instruments for the programs included in this section.



Moreover, the comparison demonstrates the popularity of rehabilitation-focused

programs that double as an alternative to incarceration. These programs are designed

to treat the underlying problems, i.e., a substance abuse disorder – that likely led to the

crime being committed, rather than focus on punitive measures. Additionally, it is

important to recognize that the format and design of these programs vary extensively.

The common theme, however, is the fact that the programs are exclusive – participants

are effectively isolated from the other types of offenders that they would have interacted

with otherwise while incarcerated. Although Rockingham County does offer a few

options for chemical dependency treatment, they are not immediately comparable in

terms of funding or participant volumes.

8. CONCLUSION Despite encountering some limitations on the availability of certain types of data,

the comparative survey completed by our project team has highlighted a number of

findings regarding current trends in community corrections programs within the state of

Hampshire. In particular, it is clear from our observations that many counties have

developed strong alternatives to corrections, with the most successful ones often

sharing a number of common traits between them. The more effective programs were

either linked to or worked with the court system directly, often using a research-

validated risk assessment instrument at some point during the process of assignment to

the program – although this was not always the case. Additionally, programs that were

successful tended to be the most clearly defined in terms of their requirements, policies,

and overall objectives.



5. ANALYSIS OF DETENTION CENTER STAFFING

The following section analyzes staffing levels in Rockingham County’s

Department of Corrections.

1. MANY FACTORS IMPACT THE AVAILABILITY OF PERSONNEL TO MEET THE SCHEDULED STAFFING NEEDS.

Several critical factors impact the number of personnel required to staff the

operations of the DOC. These include the staff work schedule, the use of leave and the

facility and resulting fixed post staffing plan. This section considers the impact of the

use of leave and the impact of the current work schedule.

(1) Net Availability of Staff Must Be Taken into Account When Analyzing Overall Staffing Requirements.

When considering the number of personnel required to meet a given staffing

need, it is important to consider the impact of both short term and long term leave on

the actual availability of staff to work their scheduled shifts. There are two methods for

calculating this critical factor, including the concept of “net availability” and the concept

of “shift relief factor.” The first expresses the availability of personnel to work their

scheduled shifts in percent terms (e.g., an Officer may be available 85% of his

scheduled time). The second approach examines the number of personnel required to

staff a position including the impact of net availability, work schedule, regular days off

and the like. This is known as the “shift relief factor.” For example, a CO with net

availability of 85% working a traditional 5-on 2-off 8-hour shift (71% of days are

scheduled) would be represented by a shift relief factor of 1.66 (1 / 85% / 71% = 1.66).



In calculating the net availability factor for the Rockingham County Department of

Corrections, the project team made the following assumptions:

• There are 66 filled positions available for scheduling. This figure also fluctuates, not only from year to year, but within any single year. However, as this was the actual number of staff available for fixed post scheduling during the time of on-site project activities, the project team used this figure.

• The average rate of staff turnover is 12.6%. The average for 2012 and 2013 was

actually slightly higher, however as the number varies from year to year, the project team used a rounded figure of 15%. With a staff of 81 Officers, this results in an assumed turnover of 11 Officers each year.

• It takes 3 months from the announcement of a job opening till an Officer is

available to work a shift. This time period has been reduced through recent efforts by the Department, which include interviewing promising applicants at the time of application, reducing the number of DOC staff involved in interviewing the applicant, and other efforts. "

• The Department allows Correctional Officers to work either a 5-on, 2-off (5 and

2), or a 4 and 2 shift schedule on first and second shifts. On third shift, all Officers work the 5 and 2 rotation. During the course of on-site project activities, there were 23 Officers on the 4 and 2 rotation, with the balance (43) on a 5 and 2 rotation. This blended shift rotation required the project team to also calculate a blended availability factor. As Officers on a 5 and 2 rotation are available on 71.4% of days, and those on a 4 and 2 rotation are available on 66.7% of days, the project team “weighted” the availability according to the number of Officers on each of the two shift rotations. This weighted availability factor is 69.2%.

The following table shows the results using 2013 leave data provided by the

Department of Corrections:

A. Scheduled Hours 146,240 B. Lost Time (Leave, Training) 17,255 C. Hours Worked (B-A) 128,985 D. Percent Net Availability (C/A) 88.2% E. Impact of Turnover (Est. 11 Positions/(3.Mos. To Replace) (25% of year)*(81 current positions * 12.6% turnover) 5,720 F. Hours Worked (C-E) 123,265 G. Percent Gross Availability (F/A) 84.3% H. Shift Relief Factor (1/G/.71) 1.70 I. FTE's Required to Fill 24-Hour Post 5.11

The following paragraphs summarize the information shown in the table, above:



• The overall net availability of staff, after all days off and turnover are included, is 84.3%. This figure is typical for shift operations when time off, training, military and other leaves are included. This figure also includes the impact of turnover in the DOC. Without the impact of turnover the net availability figure is approximately 88%, which is relatively high. However, this may be at least partially explained by the fact that there has been significant turnover in recent years, with the result that many Correctional Officers have relatively little time in the job, with little accrued leave time.

• The shift relief factor, or the number of personnel required to staff a single 8-hour

position seven (7) days a week is 1.70. Converted to the number of personnel required to staff operations around the clock, this figure would equal 5.11 FTE’s per 24-hour position. This figure is consistent with the project team’s prior experience with similar corrections and law enforcement operations.

• The “Impact of Turnover” (Line E in the table) is the result of assuming that

turnover is 12.6% (the approximate figure for 2009 through 2013). Additionally, it takes into account recent changes in the manner in which the DOC facilitates the hiring process, which is assumed to take about 3 months. It is worth noting at this point that if the DOC achieved a turnover rate of 10%, the shift relief factor would decrease from 1.70 to 1.69, which would have some effect on required staffing levels.

The next element in the staffing analysis is the ‘fixed post staffing plan’ in the

Detention Center.

(2) Analysis of the Fixed Post Staffing Plan in the Correctional Facility Raises No Issues Relating to the Effectiveness of the Current Approach.

The Rockingham County Detention Center is staffed 24 hours per day and 7

days per week with a staffing plan that varies throughout daytime and nighttime hours

depending on the day of week (court days versus non-court days) and on activities

hours (meals, inmate visits, etc.). The “fixed post staffing plan” for the Rockingham

County Detention Center is shown in the following table (with a second chart describing

the principal use of each housing area:



Fixed Post Staffing Plan for the Rockingham Detention Center

Unit

Correctional Officer Sergeant

1st Shift 2nd

Shift 3rd

Shift Total 1st Shift 2nd

Shift 3rd

Shift Total Administration 1 1 1 3 Booking 1 1 1 3 Classification 1 1 2 Maint. Float 1 1 Infirmary Float 1 1 6 – 2 Float 1 1 7 – 3 Float 1 1 1 – 9 Float 1 1 2 – 10 Float 1 1 3 – 11 Float 1 1 Central Control 2 2 1 5 A/B Block 2 2 1 5 C Block 2 2 1 5 D Block 2 2 1 5 E Block 2 2 1 5 F Block 2 2 1 5 G Block 2 2 1 5

Important notes relating to the staffing plan include the following:

• There is an “Optional” Block Supervisor on each shift, however, due to staffing

levels, this position is typically not available, and is not listed in the staffing plan above.

• The Supervisor is not assigned to a specific area of the jail. The position is

responsible for the supervision of all personnel, and is therefore shown as “Administration” in the staffing plan above.

• On Saturdays and Sundays, there are no Classification Officers, Infirmary Float

or Maintenance Float positions. • Personnel assigned to Classification are Corporals.

The following chart describes each of the housing areas in the Detention Center:



Block Offender Profile Security Level Capacity Description

A/B Pre-Trial Maximum/Medium 80 (32 + 48) Pre-Classification, Suicide Risks

C Pre-Trial Maximum 48 No sex offenders D Sentenced Maximum 61 E Pre-Trial Medium 48 F Sentenced Medium/Minimum 87 G Sentenced Minimum 63 Work release Booking New Bookings N/A N/A Also suicide watch

The following exhibit provides the project team’s analysis of the current fixed

post staffing plan.

Unit Observations A/B Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. C Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. D Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. E Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. F Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. G Block Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. Booking Necessary post. Direct contact with inmates. Staffed with two COs on 3rd shift

when volume is high. Controls access and oversees activities in blocks. Central Control Necessary post. Staffed with 2 COs during 1st and 2nd shift when inmates are in

common areas. Staffed with 1 CO on 3rd shift when inmates are locked down. Classification Necessary post. Staffed with a Corporal during 1st and 2nd shifts. No

classification officer on 3rd shift. One Corporal is responsible for A/B, C, D and E blocks (un-sentenced). The other for F and G blocks (sentenced). Fills in as necessary taking inmates to barber. Can fill in on Central Control.

Sergeant Supervisory ratio of 1:19, although Corporals serve in this capacity to a lesser degree. Provides oversight on all areas. Responds to emergencies.

In addition to the “fixed” posts listed in the table above, the DOC utilizes

“Floaters” to perform both specific duties and to assist other Correctional Officers in the

performance of their duties. These are listed in the table below.



Assignment Observations Maintenance Float Fills in where needed on 3rd shift. Frequently fills in on cell block. Infirmary Float Transports inmates to and from infirmary on 1st and 2nd shifts, M-F. 6-2 Float Receives food deliveries from vendor. Monitors trays, does headcounts,

cleans. Relieves COs on break. 7-3 Float Provides fill-in and assistance in bookings area. Receives and searches new

inmates. Monitors visiting area. 1-9 Float Responds to emergencies. Fills in where needed on 2nd shift. Relieves COs

on break. Also searches mail. 2-10 Float Responds to emergencies. Fills in where needed on 2nd shift. Relieves COs

on break. 3-11 Float Responds to emergencies. Fills in where needed on 2nd shift. Relieves COs

on break and assists with visits.

The facility’s fixed post staffing plan is well designed for efficiency with no

extraneous Correctional Officer posts. This is evidenced in the following examples:

• The DOC currently makes use of existing resources to provide relief – most often using Floaters.

• The DOC uses Floaters prudently, by assigning specific duties, but with the

ability to transition to fill in at fixed posts as needed.

• Supervisors may occasionally be able to assist with relief depending on their other responsibilities.

In summary, the Department’s fixed post staffing plan is adequate to meet the

safety and operational needs of the facility, and the project team makes no

recommendations to alter this plan.

2. THE DOC HAS AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF HIGH TURNOVER RATES OVERTIME LEVELS ARE HIGH.

The project team previously presented a discussion regarding the shift relief

factor for positions in the facility. This calculation indicated that for every fixed post

position that is required for an eight-hour shift, seven days per week, the shift relief

factor is 1.70. This essentially means that for every four fixed post positions, there are

seven FTEs required to staff the posts.



(1) Analysis of Current Staffing Needs Given Current Approaches to Deploying and Scheduling Staff.

There are 19 fixed posts in the Jail that require coverage for 16 hours per day,

365 days per year, and 9 that require coverage for eight hours per day, 365 days per

year. Another, the Classification Section, requires coverage for 16 hours per day, five

days per week for the year. These fixed posts require 81 FTEs, as shown below.

Fixed Posts Number Relief Factor Required FTE

Fixed posts requiring 16 hours of coverage, 7 days per week

19 3.40 64.6


9 1.70 15.3


1 1.23 1.2

Total Required Staffing

81.1

The table shows that the total required staffing for Jail operations is 81.1 FTE.

Given that the total authorized staffing level is 81 FTEs, there is no indicated need for

additional staffing at this time. However, it should be noted that, although there is no

indicated need to increase staffing, there are only 66 Correctional Officers and

Corporals in the DOC currently, with three of these on extended leave – 18.5% of

authorized positions are unfilled, at present, with a 12.6% average turnover rate. This

is somewhat high (7% – 10% is the usual level of turnover in a correctional agency).

This places the DOC in the position of either calling in Officers on scheduled off

days to cover posts, or leaving posts unfilled. Often, this overtime is mandatory. The

employee survey supported this conclusion.

The Department is currently expending a significant amount in overtime costs in

order to fill vacant posts. Through December 10, 2013, the Department had

accumulated 8,071.5 hours of overtime, which equates to an annualized figure of



8,565.7 hours. This represents the full time equivalent of 4.1 employees, at 2080 hours

per year per employee. The County has three choices to address this issue:

• Over-hire to compensate for high levels of turnover. The project team and the County would reject this because of the additional costs to hire over the current authorized staffing levels which are adequate for the Detention Center.

• Convert overtime to straight time through improved recruitment and

retention efforts. High levels of overtime are not ideal to staff a detention facility – staff get “burned out” which contributes to turnover and officer safety can be compromised because of fatigue. Most detention centers target staff attrition rates under 10%. If this attrition rate were achieved in Rockingham County it would result in the conversion of at least one third of the overtime to straight time.

• Continue with existing approaches to staffing the facility with relatively

high levels of overtime. The existing approach to staffing the Detention Center with relatively high levels of overtime recognizes the cost effectiveness of overtime compared to straight time. The current collective bargaining agreement indicates that the beginning salary for a Correctional Officer is $30,992; adding fringe benefits of 57.3% brings this to a full cost of $48,750. The straight time cost of 4 Correctional Officers is $195,000. The overtime cost for 4 Correctional Officers is $162,063 (in 2013).

The project team does not recommend either a change in the fixed post staffing

plan or the number of authorized positions in the short term. However, in the longer

term it is clear that the County and the Department need to make greater efforts to

recruit and retain sufficient numbers of Correctional Officers to adequately staff the

facility.

The project team has made recommendations elsewhere in this report to lower

the attrition rate through strengthened and more proactive recruitment, hiring and

retention practices. If the DOC turnover rate were lowered to 10% per year, rather than

experiencing a loss of about 11 Correctional staff per year, the figure would be closer

to eight (8).



Recommendation: The Department of Corrections has an adequate number of authorized positions to staff the facility. However, because of relatively high turnover levels overtime rates are high. While this is a cost effective approach it has led to morale issues and contributes to the turnover problem. As a result, in the longer term the Department should improve its recruitment and retention efforts to address potential morale and officer safety issues. (2) The Department Should Adopt a 12-Hour Shift Schedule Rather Than the

Current 8-Hour Schedule in Order to Enhance Retention As Well As to Reduce Cost.

As was described above, the Department of Corrections currently operates three

eight-hour shifts. The first and second shifts have 19 Officers assigned, and the third

shift has 9 Officers assigned. The third shift operates with fewer Officers, as the cells

are locked down during these hours, with most inmates asleep, which reduces the

need for oversight and transport.

The transition to a 12-hour shift rotation would require two teams of 19 Officers

and two teams of 9 Officers to staff fixed post requirements, as the table below shows.

Day Team/Hours

1 2 3 4 1 D12 E12 2 D12 E12 3 D12 E12 4 D12 E12 5 D12 E12 6 D12 E12 7 D12 E12 8 D12 E12 9 D12 E12

10 D12 E12 11 D12 E12 12 D12 E12 13 D12 E12 14 D12 E12 15 D12 E12 16 D12 E12

In the table, Teams 1 and 2 are comprised of 19 Officers, and Teams 3 and 4

comprised of 9. The designation, “D12” denotes a 12-hour day shift, and “E12”

denotes a 12-hour evening shift.



The 12-hour shift results in each Officer being scheduled to work 336 hours

every eight weeks (56 days), which is 16 hours more than would have been scheduled

for the same time period under an 8-hour schedule and a 5 & 2 rotation. This will

require each Officer to be relieved by a Floater for 16 hours every 56 days. Given that

there are 56 Officers covering the fixed posts during the 56-day period, this results in

the need to cover 896 hours (56 Officers * 16 hours) during this time period. This

equates to the need for three Floater positions (896 hours of coverage/336 hours per

Floater per 56 days = 2.7 FTE). These Floaters would be regularly-scheduled to

relieve Officers on a rotational basis in order that the total number of hours per Officer

reconciles to a total of 320 every eight weeks and should be assigned to each of the

four teams for routine scheduling to account for absences related to sick, vacation,

training, etc.

There are several advantages to the transition to a 12-hour shift. These include

the following.

• There are only two shift handoffs each day. This often improves communication during the four days that the same teams are working. Information is received from and passed on to the same set of people each day.

• Staff have four days off after each four day work cycle allowing for additional rest and recuperation. Additionally, the schedule accommodates four of the sixteen weeks with full weekends off and eight of the sixteen weeks with at least one weekend day off.

• The Department reduces costs. Under the current three-shift model, in which

there are two 8-hours shifts comprised of 19 Officers, and one 8-hour shift comprised of 9 Officers, there are 376 staff hours per day. Under the two 12-hour shift model, whereby there is one shift comprised of 19 Officers and one shift comprised of 9 Officers, there are 336 hours of coverage per day, which is 40 hours fewer than is the case currently. Over a full year, this is a savings of 14,600 hours (40*365). At the average blended rate for Sergeants, Corporals and Correctional Officers, weighted for their proportional representation in the



Jail (i.e., 5 Sergeants, 6 Corporals and 60 Correctional Officers), this equates to a cost savings of about $450,260 annually.

• Experience indicates that a 12-hour shift reduces staff turnover, as Officers have four of every eight days off. This is of particular benefit to the Rockingham DOC, as staff turnover has been over 12.6% in recent years.

The starting times for the day shift should ensure that the maximum workloads

are covered during the 12 hours this shift is on duty.

Recommendation: Adopt a 12 hour, sixteen week, four team scheduling approach. This will positively influence turnover, and will result in a cost savings of about $450,260 annually. This recommendation would need to be negotiated with the collective bargaining group. (5) The Department Should Place a Corporal in Charge of the Video Arraignment

Function. The Rockingham County DOC has conducted video arraignments within the Jail for

approximately ten years. There are seven circuit courts that participate in the video

arraignment process. These include Candia, Derry, Brentwood, Seabrook, Plaistow,

Portsmouth and Salem.

The numbers of video arraignments have increased markedly in the past several

years, as the table below shows.

Year Number 2009 803 2010 1,069 2011 1,312 2012 1.621 2013 (est.) 1,759

Currently, a Corporal schedules these arraignments and coordinates with

administrators of the appropriate courts to ensure that the technology is operable, and that

all other administrative details are handled prior to, and during, the arraignment. During

other times of the day, the Sergeant performs a variety of administrative duties such as

reviewing booking logs to determine when inmates must be arraigned, developing



statistics of arraignments, updating file folders related to inmate hearings, updates the

court calendar showing the dates and times that judges are available within each circuit,

and other similar duties.

The duties of the video arraignment function are administrative in nature, and could

be performed by a more junior rank than a Sergeant.

Recommendation: The DOC has just converted the video arraignment Sergeant to a Corporal which the project team supports and recommends that this be a permanent conversion. This will result in a cost savings of approximately $3,678 annually in salary plus fringe benefits. This will allow the Sergeant who has been in this role to function in an operational role.



6. ANALYSIS OF SUPPORT SERVICES

The Department of Corrections receives support for its daily operations through

the Business Office as well as from the Human Services Division. The Business Office

provides budget and accounting services, as well as reception and administrative

support through the following staff:

• Office Supervisor

• 2 Accountants • Security Clerk • Administrative Assistant

The Human Services Division provides mental health counseling, drug and

alcohol counseling and educational programs for inmates through the following staff:

• Mental Health Counselor • Drug and Alcohol Counselor

• Education Coordinator

In addition to these services, inmate medical services are provide on site through

a contract service provider.

1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS ARE CURRENTLY STAFFED APPROPRIATELY.

The project team conducted multiple interviews with administrative staff in the

Department. There were multiple objectives to these interviews, which included the

following:

• What administrative and financial functions are being performed?

• Which of the staff members are responsible for performing these functions?



• Are the staff performing all necessary functions to ensure that financial records

are being maintained in a comprehensive and accurate manner?

• Is the performance of these functions in accordance with the needs and requirements of the County?

• Is the Department adequately staffed to perform the functions for which it is

responsible? Both interviews and experience indicate that the Business Office is adequately

staffed to perform the financial duties for which it is responsible. The project team

addresses certain operational deficiencies below, however these are not directly related

to the adequacy of the numbers of staff allocated to the functions. As a further check,

however, on the adequacy of the absolute numbers of staff required for financial and

administrative functions in the Department, the project team also conducted a

comparative survey of other Departments of Corrections in New Hampshire. The

results are contained in the table below.

County Average Daily

Population Number of Administrative

Staff Cheshire 122 2 Merrimac 183 3 Hillsborough 642 7 Sullivan 106 2 Rockingham 385 5

Clearly, it is not possible to know the full scope of services provided by financial

and administrative staff in each of the comparative counties’ departments. Nor can we

know whether these scopes of services are precisely comparable. However, it appears

from the table that Rockingham County’s staffing level is within the expected range, as

compared to its peers. Therefore, combined with the project team’s observations,

interviews and experience, the comparative survey indicates that the current



administrative services staffing levels in the Department are appropriate as they

currently stand.

Recommendation: The Department should make no change to its current levels of administrative staffing.

2. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HIRE A CASE MANAGER TO COORDINATE

THE DELIVERY OF PROGRAMMATIC SERVICES TO INMATES, AS WELL AS TO EFFECT INMATES’ RE-ENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY.

The Department provides programmatic services to inmates through the efforts

of three separate service providers in the Human Services Division. These are the

Mental Health Coordinator, the Drug and Alcohol Coordinator and the Education

Coordinator. Currently, these three employees provide services individually to specific

inmates, with relatively little coordination of services to ensure both the maximum

benefit to the inmate, as well as the assimilation of the inmate back into the community.

The project team recommends that the Human Services Division hire a Case

Manager whose responsibility would be to coordinate service provision for inmates

which begins at intake, and extends through release into the community. In this role,

the Case Manager would conduct an initial assessment, which identifies an inmate’s

needs. This role would extend to case planning, incorporating both in-house services

as well as any needed specialist rehabilitation and re-integration intervention. Central to

this role would be the exercise of professional judgment to ensure that inmate needs

are identified and provided, and that plan monitoring, review and management are each

aligned to the needs of the inmate. In full, the Case manager would be responsible for:

• Integrating monitoring strategies with any needed targeted intervention, as well as motivational strategies, to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

• Coordinating DOC-based efforts with those of the surrounding communities



• Integrating the efforts of the DOC with those of non-corrections-based stakeholders (e.g., family, employers, faith-based institutions, etc.).

• Enhancing the motivation of the inmate to become self-supporting.

The comparative survey conducted by the project team indicates that Cheshire,

Strafford and Sullivan counties, each with smaller prison populations than Rockingham

County, have case managers on staff, indicating that this position adds value in

coordinating inmate service provision. The project team recommends that the

Rockingham DOC also adopt the principle of integrated case management by hiring a

Case Manager in the Human Services Division.

Recommendation: Hire a Case Manager in the Human Services Division to coordinate overall service provision from intake through assimilation of the inmate into the community. The approximate cost of this position is $78,650, including salary and benefits at 57% of salary.

3. THE PROJECT TEAM RECOMMENDS THAT THE BUSINESS OFFICE BEGIN

TO RECONCILE ALL FINANCIAL DISCREPANCIES MONTHLY. The Department of Corrections utilizes X-Jail to record all inmate financial

transactions. These entries include deposits to inmate accounts, as well as expenditures

from these accounts for food, toiletries, books, services, and other. The Business Office is

required to send to the Finance Department records and support for all revenues and

expenditures for inmate accounts and all other transactions, and the Finance Department

makes payments bi-weekly for any accounts payable.

The Business Office also enters these financial transactions into the County’s

financial system, Munis. At the end of the month, the net of all transactions in X-Jail and

Munis should balance to the same figure, however they do not do so each month, as

reported by the Finance Department. Further, these discrepancies are not being

reconciled at the end of the month.



The Business Office should be reconciling these discrepancies and reporting them

to the Finance Office on a monthly basis.

Recommendation: The DOC Business Office should provide a reconciliation of any discrepancies between X-Jail, Munis and bank statements each month to the Finance Department. 4. THE DEPARTMENT’S BUSINESS OFFICE SHOULD MEET MONTHLY WITH

THE COUNTY FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Organizationally, the Business Office reports to the Superintendent of the

Department of Corrections. However, the Office does perform accounting and

budgetary functions that make communications with the County’s Finance Department

vitally important. In the past, there have been breakdowns in this communication that

may have, at least in part, contributed to financial errors, and even malfeasance.

The Finance Department of the County performs an annual audit of internal

control practices by the DOC, and has enumerated many findings in at least the past

two years for which the project team has reports. In discussions with the Finance

Department, the findings and recommendations have been unevenly implemented, with

much of this attributed to inadequate communication on a regular basis.

The project team recommends that the Business Office staff meet monthly with

the Finance Department for discussions of current interest, as well as those issues that

have broader applicability. These may include the following:

• Financial controls

• Accounts payable • Revenue reporting • Issues with reconciliations • Progress on compliance with the annual financial audit



• Recent GASB changes and requirements • Other

This monthly meeting should be more than a simple phone conversation update.

Many of the findings in the annual financial audit indicate that there are systemic

problems that should require the immediate attention of not only the Office Supervisor in

the Business Office, but the full staff as well. The project team recommends that

personal attendance be required at these meetings, and should include the Finance

Department Director, as well as staff members who have direct interaction with the

DOC, and each of the three DOC Business Office staff members.

Recommendation: The DOC Business Office staff should meet monthly with the Finance Department of the County to discuss financial topics of current interest as well as topics of mutual broader interest. This meeting should be a forum for both the Finance Department and the DOC Business office to cover topics that they consider to be of importance in their interactions with each other. 7. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD EXPAND THE USE OF THE X-JAIL SYSTEM IN

HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS.

Interviews and observations by the project team in the Human Services Division

indicate that as inmates attend and complete counseling programs at the Jail, these

programs are recorded manually in a folder, but are not entered into the X-Jail system.

Therefore, although counselors may review any single inmate’s file to determine the

number and types of programs that the particular inmate has completed, it is not possible

to easily determine how many inmates have attended a specific program without a

substantial manual effort.

Failing to record programs and counseling sessions attended, and completed, by

inmates inhibits the Human Services Division’s ability to easily retrieve inmate records



and, further, does not facilitate an assessment of the effectiveness of any program.

Records of these programs and sessions should be entered into the X-Jail system and,

further, should be linked to an inmate’s history as an inmate at the Jail. The Department

should ensure that there is restricted access to these records, as there are many in the Jail

with access to X-Jail.

Recommendation: Begin to enter inmates’ records of attendance and completion of programs and counseling sessions into X-Jail. 8. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD RE-INSTITUTE A WEEKLY MEETING WITH

MEDICAL STAFF TO ENSURE THAT MEDICAL ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER.

The County has contracted with a private medical services provider for inmates

housed at the Department of Corrections. There are many facets of the contract that

require the medical services provider to meet certain basic and minimum standards of

performance, and at the current time, these are being addressed on a quarterly basis.

Interviews with medical staff indicate that in prior years, these meetings had been

conducted weekly, and focused on such issues as the following:

• Screening protocols

• Hours of service per week • Access to specialists • Lab testing • Administration of EKG after tasing incidents • Access to Correctional Officers on floating assignment • Others

The Department should re-institute the weekly meeting with the medical staff in

order to ensure that both contractual issues and daily operational issues are resolved in a



timely manner. Currently, medical staff report that the large majority of correspondence

with the Major and Superintendent are via e-mail, which is inadequate to quickly resolve

certain issues. One such issue that reportedly occurs with some regularity is that the

Correctional Officer on floating assignment to the infirmary is “pulled” to cover a cell block,

to conduct prisoner transports, or for other reasons. This leaves the medical staff unable

to perform needed medical services on a schedule. This, as well as other topics, should

be covered at weekly meetings between the command staff and medical staff.

Recommendation: Re-institute the weekly meeting between Jail command staff and medical staff in order to address contractual and daily operational issues in a more timely manner. 9. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO ACTIVELY RECRUIT, HIRE

AND RETAIN QUALIFIED STAFF. The project team has, elsewhere in this report, addressed the issue of unfilled

positions in the DOC. Specifically, although the authorized staffing level of 81

Correctional Officers and Corporals is sufficient to meet the security and operational

needs of the Jail, the Department’s actual staffing level is at 66 currently, with three of

these employees on extended leave, meaning that there are only 63 Officers available

for scheduled shifts.

Using 81 positions as the baseline, the average turnover rate from 2009 through

2013 was 12.6% (51 terminations/5 years/81 positions). This figure is higher than a

typical municipal department experiences, however this is not abnormal for correctional

facilities, given the demanding nature of the work. However, it is also true that there are

perhaps some underlying troubling statistics contained in these figures. For instance,

the trend in separations from 2006 to 2013 for the DOC is presented in the chart below.



As can be seen in the chart, terminations in 2013 reached their highest levels of

the past eight years, matching those of 2009. Additionally, the past five years have

seen levels greater than those of the three years from 2006 to 2008. But perhaps

somewhat more troubling from a forward-looking perspective is the general decline in

the number of years of tenure of terminated employees, as the following chart

illustrates.

5"

8"

4"

12"

9" 9" 9"

12"

2006" 2007" 2008" 2009" 2010" 2011" 2012" 2013"

Termina2ons"by"Year"

2.84"

7.93" 8.08"

5.58"

7.57"7.07"

5.40"

3.80"

2006" 2007" 2008" 2009" 2010" 2011" 2012" 2013"

Average"Tenure"of"Terminated"Employees"



The chart shows that, except for 2009, there has been a general decrease in the

average number of years that terminating employees have been employed by the DOC,

reaching a level in 2013 that was lower than any years since 2006. The County’s

Human Resources Department did not conduct exit interviews with these terminating

employees, so it is not possible to determine the exact reasons for these terminations,

nor whether there is a discernible trend in the reasons. However, in absence of specific

data, it is clear from the trend that employees are making their decisions to leave the

employment of the DOC much more quickly after their initial hiring date than was the

case in previous years.

To place this in a broader context, the average turnover for Correctional Officers

nation-wide in 2008 was 16.2%1, and had trended down from a high of 17.2% in 2006.

Therefore, it is not necessarily the turnover rate of 12.6% that the Rockingham DOC

has experienced in the past two years that is the primary concern, but rather that there

may be avenues for recruitment and retention that the DOC has not yet explored or

implemented. It is also somewhat alarming, as the two charts above indicate, that the

trends in turnover rates may be increasing, and that employees are making their

decisions to leave DOC employment more quickly.

The results of the employee questionnaire administered by the project team

make it clear that employees do not believe that there are adequate numbers of staff to

ensure that the facility is operated safely and efficiently. In fact, 16 of the 20

respondents (80%) strongly disagreed with the statement. “The DOC operates with an

appropriate number of staff.” Further, all 20 respondents either disagreed or disagreed

1 American Correctional Association Adult Prison, Parole and Probation Directories from 2000 to 2009."



strongly with the statement, “We have an adequate number of staff to meet the

requirements of the fixed post staffing plan.”

The issue, therefore, from the perspective of DOC management is twofold:

• Insufficient numbers of staff are being recruited and hired for critical operational positions in the facility

• The DOC is failing to retain the staff that it does hire.

The project team recommends a multi-faceted approach to enhance and

supplement the efforts already implemented by the DOC in the recruitment of qualified

applicants. First, the Superintendent should adopt the role of educating the public of the

opportunities that exist at the DOC. Many potential applicants have a negative

impression of correctional work, and the objective of the Superintendent should be to

address these impressions by stressing the correctional aspects of the work rather than

the punitive aspects. This can be accomplished at job fairs, talks at high schools, and

other forums. The DOC should also develop positive relations with the media. Periodic

news releases that highlight successful programs, with personal interest stories, can

create a favorable impression within the community, and may spark interest in careers

at the DOC

Second, the DOC should establish its priority target applicants and develop

strategies to reach these individuals. These priority applicants might include retired

military personnel, criminal justice students and two and four year colleges.

The DOC should also expand the methods by which it reaches its target

applicants. These may include both active and passive methods, and may include the

following:

Publication of job openings at local job services and local government agencies.



• Multi-media tools such as display boards, pictures, posters, brochures, computer presentations, Twitter, and recruitment videos. The materials might cover such areas as career opportunities, agency values, pay and benefits, and the testing and hiring process. ""

• Advertisements in local, regional, and national publications. Although the Department does use traditional advertising methods, it should always be searching for ways to reach more applicants, which may include publications not only locally, but also in surrounding states, in military publications, and on the Internet. Ads on billboards and buses, particularly on certain routes where they will be seen by promising potential candidates.

• Existing employees. One of the most convincing recruitment efforts can come

from current employees who are satisfied with their work at the DOC. These employees should be encouraged to speak with friends, family and other acquaintances who may be interested in careers at the DOC, and should be rewarded for doing so. The Department has, in the past, implemented this strategy with varying success, however satisfied employees are an organization’s best emissaries and encouraging them to reach out to others represents the lowest-cost advertising method available.

• Use of the web site as both a recruitment tool and one that facilitates the

application process. "

Once recruitment and hiring activities have taken place, the DOC must also focus

on retaining these employees. These efforts should focus not only on new employees,

but also on longer-term employees as well. Studies have shown that, although

employees value compensation, this is not always the main motivating factor in

retaining employees. Others include focus on career development, recognition for good

performance, opportunities for training and continuing education, communication from

managers and supervisors, and a commitment from the employer to ensure a good

work-life balance.

The results from the employee questionnaire administered by the project team

were especially critical of training efforts and communication. The lack of training and

continuing education opportunities is undoubtedly related to some degree to the lack of



adequate numbers of staff to cover shifts. This particular impediment should be

alleviated through the recruitment and hiring efforts recommended by the project team

in this report. However, communication from management to line employees is a good

management tool that costs little, and can engender loyalty and commitment even when

the message is not always what employees want to hear.

Recommendation: The DOC should enhance and supplement some of the recruitment, hiring and retention efforts it has recently implemented through a variety of methods.



7. ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION AND

MANAGEMENT

This chapter provides an analysis of the organizational structure of the

Rockingham County Department of Corrections (RCDOC). The chapter first provides a

summary of the criteria we utilize to examine these issues, provides an analysis of

alternative organizational structures and then provides a recommendation as to the

overall organizational structure of the RCDOC as well as the placement of units.

1. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THIS STUDY.

The Matrix Consulting Group project team sought input on organization and

management issues from the Department’s employees in two ways – we conducted

many interviews of staff; we also developed an anonymous employee survey for all staff

to provide direct input to the project team.

The employee survey asked several questions relating to the management of the

Department. While there is a separate chapter of this report which provides a detailed

summary of this feedback, the point which follow summarize some of the key findings

regarding management of the Rockingham County Department of Corrections:

• Management internal communications are not effective – over 95% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with a statement that they were kept informed of important Department information. Even if employees have a specific question they are not answered quickly (50% disagreed or disagreed strongly that employee benefit questions are answered quickly but only 15% agreed with the statement).

• Operational efficiencies are poor – almost 65% of respondents disagreed or

strongly disagreed with a statement that the Department does a good job operating the DOC in an efficient manner.



• Information systems do not bridge that gap with 71% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that these systems meet their needs.

• Views toward operational management of inmate populations are mixed –

managing inmate populations in housing units, the daily schedule, etc. received a mix response with 40% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and 25% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Similar views were expressed regarding the effectiveness of the inmate classification system.

• Policy development in the Department of Corrections is poor – 75% of

respondents disagree or disagree strongly that policies and procedures are complete and clear.

• Training received particularly strong negative views among staff. For

example:

– 65% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they receive the amount of training needed to keep their skill levels high.

– 75% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the Department places a high

enough value on training. – 80% disagreed or strongly disagreed that there are adequate opportunities

to attend training classes. – 80% disagreed or strongly disagreed that management training is

adequate. These important issues were corroborated in the many interviews we conducted

within the Department as part of this study. The project team’s research has

corroborated much of this. These are significant issues and potentially affect the

successful implementation of any and all of the recommendations in this report. The

resolution of these issues also potentially affect the morale of staff and ultimately

employee retention. These issues and approaches to resolve these issues are

addressed in the sections of the report which follow.



2. THE CRITERIA FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE INCLUDE IT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING.

In order to evaluate the organization and management structure of the

Rockingham County DOC, the project team first had to identify appropriate criteria. The

paragraphs, that follow, describe those criteria as well as describe what is meant by

each of them:

• Functional Alignment: Have functions that support each other been grouped together? Are functions which interact with each other divided organizationally?

• Clear Delineation of Duties: Are there clear roles for each manager? Are there

duplications or gaps in the roles of managers? • Spans of control: Are the similar reporting or responsibility spans of control

among managers? • Chain of Command: Are there reporting relationships that facilitate the chain of

command or not? • Using Staff in Support of Daily Operations: Does the DOC make good use of

subordinate staff to handle support roles? • Management Contact: Do organizational units and managers have frequent

contact? Are the interactions consequential. Each of these criteria, alone, would not provide enough information to make a

decision about the appropriate organizational structure and functioning of a government

entity. As a group, however, they provide the information required by the project team

to come to conclusions about the current organizational structure and to make

recommendations for improvement. The section, that follows, provides a description of

the current organizational structure.



3. THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ALLOCATES SECURITY AND STAFF FUNCTIONS AMONG MID-MANAGERS.

The organization chart, below, provides a summary of the allocation of functions

within the Rockingham County Department of Corrections. Following the organization

chart is a summary of key roles and responsibilities for managers in the DOC.

Position Title Key Roles & Responsibilities Superintendent

• The Superintendent is responsible for the overall management and

oversight of the DOC. • The Superintendent directly supervises administrative staff as well as

the Major; together with the Major the Superintendent supervises the four (4) Lieutenant positions.

• The Superintendent also directly supervises the Business Office and Administrative functions.

• The Superintendent jointly supervises staff and contractors involved in facility programs (e.g., education).

• The Superintendent works with other County justice system managers (County Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff and Courts) in evaluating the detention system’s needs and alternatives to incarceration.

Superintendent

Major

Lieutenant Scheduling/

Training Lieutenant Security

Lieutenant Records


Programs







Position Title Key Roles & Responsibilities Major

• The Major is the Chief of day-to-day operations of the DOC. • The Major directly supervises the four (4) Lieutenant positions. • The Major jointly supervises staff and contractors involved in facility

programs (e.g., education). • The Major will take responsibility for the overall Detention Facility in the

absence of the Superintendent. • Is the liaison between the County / Department of Corrections and the

Medical Director and the medical contract. • Supervises the Human Services staff in the DOC responsible for

mental health, substance abuse counseling and education. • Takes a leading role in human resources functions relating to hiring

and promotions, including arranging / coordinating interviewing, testing. • Reviews facility incident reports.

Lieutenant – Operations/Security

• Responsible for all operations in the facility 24/7. • Writes “good time release letters”. • Handles breaches of security, gathers intelligence. • Responsible for cameras in the facility, ensuring background checks on

contractors. Also responsible for cameras. • Evaluates Sergeants’ performance. • Conducts defensive tactics training. • Ensures that DOC passes the “Prison Rape Elimination Act”

inspection. Lieutenant – Scheduling/Training

• Develops annual schedule. • Monitors and reviews attendance to ensure conformance with contract

(e.g., abuse of sick leave) • Conducts internal affairs investigations. • Works with HR on DOC staff who are on leave. • Tracks performance evaluations. • Handles complaints from employees. • Administers training.

Lieutenant – Classification/ Community Corrections

• Responsible for oversight and monitoring of alternatives to

incarceration within the responsibility of the Department of Corrections: – Interviewing of candidate offenders for release. – Develops participation plan for assignees. – Assigning GPS devices for participants. – Managing the Secure Alert contract. – Calls checking on the status of participants. – Repair equipment / troubleshoot. – Report on / successfully complete or terminate.

• Also screens the County’s work release program in the same was as duties for alternatives listed above.

• Supervises staff in charge of inmate classification. • Coordinates with the County’s Drug Court. • Maintains the facility Law Library. • Works with the County’s alternatives oversight committee on program

trends, issues, etc.



Position Title Key Roles & Responsibilities Lieutenant – Records

• Responsible for the oversight of inmate records. • Responsible for the oversight of court records. • Responsible for coordination of contract beds for female detainees at

four other county facilities, including transport to and from. • Responsible for coordinating all inmate transports to other facilities. • Provides oversight of booking; provides oversight of initial screening for

medical and temporary housing. • Maintains lists of upcoming releases from custody and calculates

release dates for sentenced inmates. • Responsible for oversight of and coordination for the County’s Jail

Management System, “Arcomix”. • Responsible for oversight of and coordination for other systems in use

in the Department, including PCs and imaging of records. • Supervises the Sergeant who is responsible for video arraignments. • Responsible for facility supplies.

The general organization of the Rockingham Department of Corrections, then,

allocates staff and line functions among top management staff. The can be simplified

as follows:

• Superintendent – overall DOC manager. • Major – intermediary and subsidiary DOC responsibility in addition to oversight of

facility programs and staff human resources. • Operations Lieutenant – detention facility commander. • Records Lieutenant – staff officer in charge of records and systems. • Classification and Alternatives Lieutenant – staff officer in charge of release

programs and in facility classification (but not programs). • Scheduling and Training Lieutenant – staff officer for staff support functions. As this simplified description indicates the Rockingham County Department of

Corrections allocates staff officer functions among several management positions – the

Superintendent, the Major and the three (3) Lieutenants with one Lieutenant responsible

for day-to-day operations of the Detention Center.



4. EVALUATION OF THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AGAINST THE ORGANIZATIONAL CRITERIA DEVELOPED RAISES SEVERAL ISSUES.

The table, below, compares the existing organizational structure and

organizational performance in the Department of Corrections to the criteria established

at the beginning of this chapter.

Criteria

Y/N

Description of Issues

Functional Alignment

Y

• Responsibility for administrative functions are divided among

several managers in the DOC – the Superintendent, the Major and two Lieutenants.

• Direct control over in facility programs may not be best under the Major.

• The roles and responsibilities of the Superintendent and the Major are in a state of change because of recent turnover of the latter position.

Delineation of Duties

Y

• As indicated above, responsibility for administrative functions is

divided among several top and mid management staff. • Among Lieutenants there are vast differences in the magnitude

of assigned roles and responsibilities.

Spans of Control

Y • As with the assignment of duties, there are vast differences in

the spans of control among Lieutenants, even recognizing differences in operational and executive staff roles.

Chain of Command

N

• It is clear in the organization who is in charge of the overall

organization (Superintendent with the Major in a supporting role) and the Security Lieutenant for detention system operation, however, the roles of the other Lieutenants are blurred in DOC.

Level of Responsibility

Y

• There are several administrative functions, especially relating to

human resources, which could be delegated to civilian personnel.

Management Contact

N

• As a small face-to-face organization frequency of contact is not

an issue, though depth of interaction may be in the DOC.

There are several organizational issues in Rockingham County’s Department of

Corrections which should be evaluated for the potential to positively impact

organizational performance and manager utilization. These issues include the

following:



• Functional Alignment – There are four managers with responsibility for the administrative functioning of the Department of Corrections. These managers and their roles include:

Position Title Administrative Responsibilities

Superintendent

• The Superintendent also directly supervises the Business Office and

Administrative functions. Major

• Takes a leading role in human resources functions relating to hiring

and promotions, including arranging / coordinating interviewing, testing. Lieutenant – Scheduling / Training

• Develops annual schedule. • Monitors and reviews attendance to ensure conformance with contract

(e.g., abuse of sick leave) • Works with HR on DOC staff who are on leave. • Tracks performance evaluations. • Administers training.

Lieutenant – Records

• Responsible for the oversight of inmate records. • Responsible for the oversight of court records. • Responsible for coordination of contract beds for female detainees at

four other county facilities, including transport to and from. • Responsible for coordinating all inmate transports to other facilities. • Maintains lists of upcoming releases from custody and calculates

release dates for sentenced inmates. • Responsible for oversight of and coordination for the County’s Jail

Management System, “Arcomix”. • Responsible for oversight of and coordination for other systems in use

in the Department, including PCs and imaging of records. • Responsible for facility supplies.

Moreover, there is an issue with the organizational reporting of in-facility programs to the Major because these are facility programs for which mid-managers (i.e., Lieutenants) are better positioned to interface. Direct responsibility for these programs also impacts the ability of the Major to dedicate time and energy toward a holistic view of the operations of the detention facility.

• Delineation of Duties – Similar to the previous issue, the fact that responsibility for administrative services diminishes the accountability for human resources and potentially other administrative services functions. This can also result in delays, poor coordination and uncertainly among staff for the performance of certain administrative services functions in the Department. These perceptions of lack of accountability were expressed both in individual staff interviews as well as in the employee survey.

• Spans of Control – Recognizing that spans of control do not always mean

‘people’ but ‘responsibilities’, there are still great variations in spans of control among managers in the Department of Corrections. One Lieutenant is the facility operational commander plus selected administrative roles, two other Lieutenants



are responsible for administrative functions, the fourth Lieutenant functions as the program manager for alternatives to incarceration. With functional considerations being acknowledged the spans of control for each manager are, as follows:

Position Staff Spans of

Control Superintendent

1:2

Major

1:7

Lieutenant – Security

1:6

Lieutenant – Alternatives

1:2

Lieutenant – Records

1:0

Lieutenant – Scheduling

1:0

As the table shows, two of the executive staff supervise no one, while the Major and the Security Lieutenant have very broad spans of control for operations, administrative and programmatic functions.

• Chain of Command – This is an area of considerable confusion for staff, as expressed both in interviews as well as in the employee survey. This issue, too, gets back to the issue of administrative responsibility division among mid and top command staff. The existence of equivalent level Lieutenants also impacts operations.

• Level of Responsibility – The concept of civilianization has become common in

law enforcement and correctional organizations has become more common in recent years, especially in Departments such as the Rockingham County DOC which is not staffed with fully commissioned personnel to begin with. In Rockingham County, several key administrative and programmatic positions are not filled with correctional series employees, including:

– Business Office Supervisor – Program Coordinators over Mental Health, Education and Drug / Alcohol

services. Other opportunities exist to civilianize in the organization which will be explored, including: – Management of Community Corrections. – Management of Records



• Management Contact – The Rockingham County Department of Corrections is a small organization. As a result, management of such a ‘closely held’ organization is facilitated by the availability of management and supervisory staff to face-to-face interactions for purposes of resolving issues and oversight of operations. However, as will explored later in this chapter, frequency is not the only objective in management contacts, it is also quality of those interactions. In many organizations contact quality is evidenced by:

– Setting performance objectives in each area – Seeking input on objectives and performance toward meeting them – Regular contact between managers and staff, including labor

organizations – Meetings that are agendized and prepared for by participants and the

results communicated to elected officials and to staff Before examining organizational alternatives to the issues raised in this section

of the report, the project team conducted a comparative survey for this assignment

which sheds light on other Departments of Corrections in the State which could be

considered in Rockingham County.

5. HOW COMPARABLY SIZED DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE ORGANIZED.

The project team conducted a survey of several counties in New Hampshire,

which are somewhat comparable because if size of general population and/or detention

system population. While other counties are not perfect comparisons they offer some

perspective on solutions to comparable problems when they are similar size and in the

same state taking on similar problems. The table, below, lists the comparison counties

and some general indicators of relative size:



Comparison

Cheshire County

Merrimack County

Hillsborough County

Strafford County

Sullivan County

Rockingham County

Population

76,851

146,761

402,922

124,199

43,074

297,820

ADP (2013)

122

183

642

340

106

385

# Corr. Officers

57

90

108

50

27

58

# Managers

5

9

13

6

3

6

ADP / 1000 Cap

1.59

1.25

1.59

2.73

2.46

1.29

ADP / CO’s

2.14

2.03

5.94

6.80

3.92

6.63

It should be noted that there is some double counting in the table above – beds

which are contracted out (e.g., Rockingham County) can be shown both in the

originating County as well as in the contracting County (e.g., Hillsborough).

The information in the table above shows a range of experience among counties

in New Hampshire, for example when expressed as ratios:

• Average inmate population when expressed on the basis of the number of correctional officer positions ranges from 2.03 for Merrimack County to 6.80 for Hillsborough County with 6.63 for Rockingham County (near the high). This ratio is heavily size and facility type dependent.

• The average inmate population per capita, however, does not vary as

significantly – with the lowest at 1.25 for Merrimack County and the highest at 2.73 for Strafford County with Rockingham County at 1.29 (near the low).

• The number of top and mid management positions also varies between 3 for

Sullivan County (the smallest DOC in the survey) and 13 for Hillsborough County (the largest DOC in the survey). At 6 top and mid management positions, Rockingham County is at the approximate level that 3 other counties are at.

This survey, then, places Rockingham County within the range of system size

and staffing as well as in terms of the composition of management staffing. The

following table explores management staffing further in terms of the types and roles of

management positions in each county corrections system.



Management Positions

Cheshire County

Merrimack County

Hillsborough County

Strafford County

Sullivan County

Rockingham County

Superintendent

1

1

1

1

1

1

Major/Asst. Dir.

0

1

0

1

0

1

Captain/Div. Dir

4

6

3

0

1

0

Lieutenant

0

1

9

4

1

4

Total

5

9

13

6

3

6

Managers/CO’s

8.8%

10.0%

12.0%

12.0%

5.2%

10.3%

The number of managers in Rockingham County is comparable to the other

counties in New Hampshire – again, the County is in the middle of the range. With a

top manager, a senior middle manager and functional middle managers Rockingham

County’s management complement is similar to the other counties as well.

6. THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHOULD REORGANIZE MANAGEMENT ROLES TO ADDRESS ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES.

However, where Rockingham County differs from most of the other counties is in

the roles that mid managers have. Unlike Rockingham County, Lieutenant and

equivalent positions tend to have more distinct roles in their organizations. The project

team believes that Rockingham County should revisit the roles of managers improve the

coordination and consistency of services as well as to improve the identified issue of

management accountability. The following organization chart provides a recommended

approach to this:



This proposed reorganization is described and characterized by the following

elements:

• A significant change in the focus of the top management positions – the Superintendent and the Major. First of all, with the recent promotion of a Lieutenant to the Major position the respective complementarity of these two top management positions is still evolving. However, by transferring direct responsibility for administration, the Superintendent can dedicate more time and attention to the following:

– Developing and monitoring performance objectives and accountability for

the Department of Corrections as well as externally. – Informal and indirect contact and oversight of operations, administration

(e.g., budget) and programs.

Superintendent

Major

Lieutenant Administrative

Services


Lieutenant Operations

Lieutenant Programs







– More frequent and substantive contact with labor organization representatives.

– More frequent and substantive contact with County Commissioners and

the County Delegation. – More frequent and substantive contact with other County criminal justice

system managers. – More frequent and substantive contact with other county departments of

corrections. – More thought and attention to the future of Rockingham County’s

Department of Corrections in terms of operations, facilities and programs.

• The Major, without the oversight responsibilities for significant in facility programmatic responsibilities involving medical and mental heath, education and substance abuse, this position becomes more directly responsible for operational issues and oversight. Also of significance would be the transfer of human resources responsibilities to the new Administrative Lieutenant (see below). An important function for the Major to retain would be the lead in policy review and development.

• The Lieutenants would have responsibility for distinct functions within the

organization. In general, these would be as follows:

– A Lieutenant in charge of Operations. The Operations (or Security) Lieutenant should also be in charge of Correctional Officer training and scheduling. Shift Sergeants could also assist with these duties as their own collateral duties, such as daily attendance sheets.

– A Lieutenant in charge of Administration with the Business Manager

reporting to this position. This position would also be in charge of human resources and records. This position would take responsibility for much of what the Records Lieutenant takes now, which includes some of the human resources overlap.

– A Lieutenant in charge of Community Corrections, including all

alternatives to incarceration operated by the Department of Corrections (work release, electronic monitoring and drug court) as well as classification and in facility intelligence (in coordination with Operations). This position should supervise the video arraignment function.

– A Lieutenant in Programs, including the functions and coordinators over

education, mental health, drug and alcohol counseling, etc. This



coordination would also extend to the medical and dental areas as well in facility recreation and the Law Library.

– Sergeants should assist with the administrative assignments on a

collateral duty basis.

This reorganization would simplify the organization, would make roles more

consistently for specific functions within the organization and would make these

management staff more accountable for performance in each of these areas.

Recommendation: Reorganize the roles and responsibilities for the Department of Corrections management team, taking many direct internal responsibilities from the Superintendent and Major and making distinct assignments in administration, programs, internal operations and community corrections. Sergeants should assist with administrative assignments. 7. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NEEDS TO

BE STRENGTHENED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMMUNICATIONS PURPOSES.

This section focuses on the issues associated with current management

approaches in the Rockingham County Department of Corrections. In reviewing the

management function of the Department, the project team focused on the development

of mission, vision, values and goals; the roles of management staff in the Department;

policies and procedures development and use; internal and external reporting of

performance; as well as certain personnel management systems including performance

evaluations, training and career development. This section concludes with what

identified issues mean for the leadership, teamwork, and organizational culture in the


(1) The Department of Corrections Lacks a Strategic Planning and Inclusive Process for Developing One.

The project team found during its interviews with the management team that

there are no formal long range departmental goals or strategic planning process.



Similarly, goals are not specific nor measurable. A ‘back to the basics’ approach to

developing defining documents for an organization include the following:

• Develop specific goals for each service area in the Department of Corrections. The goals that currently exist relate to secure additional staffing and general statements about the development of crime fighting strategies.

• Develop linked objectives, strategies, measurements or methods to make the

Superintendent and other staff to be accountable for developing anything concrete out of this process.

• Develop methods to measure achievement of agreed upon objectives. There are

no Department metrics in place to monitor achievement of any service goal or service target. There is a distinct lack of any performance metrics at all in the Department for either internal or external use.

Recommendations: The DOC Superintendent should be tasked with developing a staff committee for the establishment of a formal strategic plan that includes a vision of what the RCDOC should be 3-5 years in the future, goals for improvement, and an action plan that defines each goal specifically, when it is to be accomplished, and who is responsible for completing the task. The development of a new Strategic Plan should include input from throughout the Department. A key outcome of this Strategic Plan should be the assignment of accountability to each manager and supervisor of attainable objectives relating to delivery and monitoring of service to the community as well as addressing internal Departmental improvement needs. The Superintendent should develop an annual report to the community which reports back on the progress toward meeting established objectives and obtain their feedback on this as well as new initiatives. (2) A Lack of Communication Between Command Staff and Line Staff Has Led

to a Lack of Trust in the Organization.

Interviews with command and line staff, as well as the results of the employee

survey, indicate that there is a lack of trust relating to accountability and consensus

about direction in the Department of Corrections. Most notable among the impacts of



this is a breakdown in labor / management communication and relations. Examples of

this include:

• There is a lack of consistent and clear communication inside and outside of the Department among command staff through regular focused meetings, between command and line staff through meetings and written updates and between the Department and the County through updates and status reports.

• A common internal issue is that issues go to a Lieutenant or Superintendent for

resolution and the resolution does not occur or takes an inordinate amount of time. This impacts policy review and change as well as directives within the Department.

• Discipline is viewed to be applied inconsistently within the Department of

Corrections. This leads to a perception of unfair treatment (whether positively or negatively) of personnel who are being disciplined.

These are serious issues which permeate the organization’s ability to function

effectively. Several of these issues permeate other sections of the report. The subject

of internal communications requires several recommendations on it own, including the

following:

Recommendations: A more substantive set of communication processes needs to be implemented. Approaches and targets should include the following: • Weekly meetings among the six (6) command staff with an agenda

developed for each meeting, meeting minutes and including a review of selected performance and service objectives as well as key initiatives.

• Monthly meetings with supervisors, each meeting prepared and review of

selected performance and service objectives as well as key initiatives. • The Superintendent should develop a monthly newsletter for staff to

discuss accomplishments, challenges and developments. • The Superintendent should hold monthly labor / management meetings to

discuss internal issues and opportunities to improve the team orientation of all employees in the Department.



• The Chief and other command staff need to be and be seen as ‘change agents’ in the Rockingham County Department of Corrections. Top command staff need to be focused on the following:

– Ensuring that the DOC’s Strategic Plan, goals and objectives

initiatives are met by them and others.

– Cross-cutting initiatives and inter-functional cooperation and coordination is fostered.

Collectively, these measures will address several related key issues in the Department of Corrections – the need for more effective communications and the need for more effective use of team strategies. (3) There Are No Formal Established Internal or External Performance

Objectives Used to Provide Departmental Performance Reports.

Few formal performance reports exist that are metric-based and relate directly to

Department goals and objectives.

• A limited degree of goal-setting and data collection to indicate performance has been instituted at the division level.

• The Department few and superficial internal or external service delivery goals or

objectives.

• Again, the Department does not formally set long or short term objectives by function or activity. With no expressed work product outcome through the goal and objective setting process the Department has no accountability mechanisms in place.

• Key meetings need to be used to produce accountability and to optimize

departmental performance. • Performance metrics tracked are quite limited in the Department either for

internal use or for use by the County Commissioners. Without the tracking of performance measures it is impossible to know if service

commitments and objectives were being met, if all staff were productive and

accountable for their time on duty.



Recommendations: The Superintendent, Major and Lieutenants must develop a system of data collection so that the response to meeting goals and objectives can be measured. The Superintendent and his managers must develop an internal and external performance reporting system based on these goals and objectives. (4) Training of Management Personnel Is Inadequate.

There are few standardized post promotion training requirements for supervisory

and management personnel in any department of corrections in New Hampshire. The

state and national accreditation agencies offer few specific guidelines for management

and supervisory in service training after initial training is complete after promotion.

While the National Institute of Corrections provides management training opportunities,

this training does often not address the daily demands of managing correctional

services in a small detention system environment.

All supervisory and management personnel should minimally receive appropriate

training in the following categories:

• Leadership and organizational change. • Corrections problem-solving. • Performance management. • Discipline and ethics. As with non-managers, management staff should receive a achieve a minimum

amount of training – on management and leadership issues. An effective best practice

target could be established at 40 hours per year.



Recommendations: The Superintendent and command staff should develop a training schedule for all supervisors and managers that includes leadership and organizational change, problem-solving, performance management and discipline and ethics. Each manager in the Rockingham County Department of Corrections should receive a minimum of 40 hours per year on legitimately defined management and leadership topics. (5) Career Development and Succession Planning Is Non-Existent in the


Related to the issues identified in the previous section, there is no career

development and succession planning available in the Rockingham County Department

of Corrections. Supervisors and managers must be able to step into the next higher

level of the organization in the event a vacuum occurs. This will maintain stability and

consistency in times of chaos. The Department may indicate its willingness to support

career development and succession planning by completing the following:

• A proper evaluation system must be put in place for supervisory and management personnel.

• Appropriate manager and supervisor training programs must be maintained. • An effective communications system that allows supervisors and managers to

understand and be part of important decision-making process must be present. • Consideration of minimal educational standards for management staff (for

example, at least an Associate of Arts degree in Criminal Justice or Management).

Recommendations: The Superintendent should develop a system to prepare supervisors and managers so that they can perform their functions successfully as well as assume the responsibilities of their supervisor when needed. Update the performance evaluation system to meet the Department’s need to improve first line supervision and management.



Consider the development of minimal educational standards for each promotional level. 8. LEADERSHIP, TEAMWORK, AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. An organization that has leadership works as a team. The lack of leadership at

the Rockingham County DOC is apparent because of the absence of a team spirit as

consistently identified in interviews and the employee survey. There appears to be a

mistrust among some individuals within the Department. Until this is rectified it is

unlikely that common goals and objectives will be successfully developed.

Teamwork can occur when meetings are held regularly and have specific

objectives to meet. In this way, the group can coalesce into a team as they work

together to obtain desired results. Meetings do take place in the Department and

people do work together, but as described in an earlier section they are not effective

mechanisms to promote communication, leadership and effective management.

What is needed is a planned effort for members of the Department to come

together for the specific purpose of solving long-range problems and reaching

Departmental goals and objectives, in addition to the meetings the Superintendent

presently requires. This more substantive approach needs also to be inclusive of the

collective bargaining group.

Recommendations: The Superintendent, command and supervisory staff should meet off site for a one day planning session that relates directly to developing Department goals and objectives. This meeting may need to be facilitated by a third party. After the initial meeting, recurring meetings should be held annually to tie accountability to performance. The Superintendent and representatives of the collective bargaining group should meet formally monthly or quarterly with frequent informal contacts.



The table, below, provides an implementation plan for the recommendations

made in this chapter of the report.

MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Rockingham County Department of Corrections

Management Issue

Action Items

Priority

Responsibility

Due Date

Department Definition of Service

The Department has no Long Term Goals or Strategic Planning Process.

• Develop a formal strategic

plan that includes a vision, goals, and objectives and accountability for the results of this process.

H

Superintendent

Q3 2014

Department Management

A lack of communication between command and line staff causes conflicts.

• The Superintendent should

establish an effective internal communications process for each level of the Department.

• Change is necessary in the DOC and managers need to be seen as ‘change agents’.

H

H

Superintendent Superintendent and command staff

Q2 2014 Q2 2014

There are no formal established internal or external performance objectives and reports.

• Develop a system of data

collection regarding meeting goals and objectives.

H

Superintendent and command staff

Q3 2014

Personnel Management

Training for managers and the Superintendent is inadequate.

• Develop a training schedule

for all supervisors and managers that includes leadership and organizational change; and discipline/ethics’

M

Superintendent, command staff and Human Resources

Q4 2014

Career development and succession planning does not exist.

• Develop a system for career

development and succession planning. • Improve the performance

evaluation system for supervisors and managers.

• Consider educational standards for promotion

M

H

H

Superintendent and HR Superintendent and HR Superintendent, HR and labor

Q4 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014



Management Issue

Action Items

Priority

Responsibility

Due Date

Leadership, Teamwork, and Organizational Culture

The Department suffers from a culture of conflict and distrust.

• Implement yearly off site

management planning sessions

• Implement yearly off site supervisor/management planning sessions

• Maintain effective formal and informal lines of communication with the collective bargaining group.

H

H

H

Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent

Q3 2014



8. INITIAL FEASIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE USE

OF ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION

While outside of the scope of the Management Audit, the Matrix Consulting

Group project team in its work with the Rockingham County Department of Corrections

determined that there are issues with respect to incarceration versus release decisions.

This chapter of the report explores issues associated with the use of alternatives to

incarceration.

1. INTRODUCTION

Across the country rising detention system populations alongside static or

decreasing financial ability to expand detention facilities has led to much discussion in

criminal justice system managers regarding the need to keep all the individuals in

custody who had been jailed in the past. While the 1980’s and 1990’s have been

characterized by punitive approaches to incarceration, since 2000 lack of space and

questions about the effectiveness of such approaches have led to more ‘community

based approaches’ to corrections. This change has resulted from:

• As noted above the proportion of government expenditures on law enforcement and corrections has crowded out other services of government.

• Many first time and minor offenders have been incarcerated, impacting post

incarceration lives without the benefit of rehabilitative strategies. • Rising justice system cases together have slowed the adjudication process down

increasing jail populations further as average length of stay for unsentenced inmates have increased.

• Longer sentences have resulted in yet higher detention system populations as

average length of stay for sentenced inmates have increased. A wide variety of alternatives to incarceration have been developed over the past



couple of decades and their use expanded in response to these trends. The points,

below, summarize the principal approaches utilized around the country:

• Pre-Trial Release deals with offenders, with or without electronic monitoring, who have not been sentenced or referred to a diversion program. Courts may assign individuals to the program as either a condition of bail or in lieu of bail.

• Pre-Trial Diversion programs have been created in order to provide offenders

with a low risk of re-offending to be ‘diverted’ from the criminal justice system and avoid being formally convicted of a crime.

• Alternative Community Service programs function alone for minor offenders

and for more serious offenders in conjunction with other programs (such as pre-trial release). In these programs public and not for profit agencies partner with the justice system to channel community service hours to a useful purpose.

• Work Release, Work Release is an alternative to incarceration that allows individuals sentenced in which individuals work outside of the detention system complex during the day and return to the complex at night. The purpose of such a program it to minimize work disruptions which may make first or early offenders’ lives worse. In related “day reporting” programs the offender does not spend the night but ‘checks in’ for supervision purposes.

Most of these programs operate in Rockingham County, albeit at low levels

compared to their use in other counties. The following section describes the use of

these programs in Rockingham County.

2. THE USE OF ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY.

The issue of who is incarcerated and who is not incarcerated is an important

issue specifically for Rockingham County because the detention facility is inadequate to

house all of the pre-trial and sentenced offenders under their jurisdiction. At current and

recent levels between 50 – 70 offenders, principally females, are hours in other county

facilities. The cost of this is about $1.5 million per year. The following table portrays the

number of inmates housed in average at other county facilities in the State in the

second half of 2013:



Date

Hills

Cheshire

Strafford

Sullivan

Total

June 45 2 16 2 65 July 51 2 14 2 69 August 47 3 12 0 62 September 37 3 12 4 56 October 34 5 13 4 57 November 42 4 8 4 58 AVG 42.7 3.2 12.0 2.4 60

The question for Rockingham County, then, is whether enough beds could be

“freed” to allow for reduction or elimination of the contracted beds in other counties.

The following table presents the total number of participants within each program

at different times over the last six months, at intervals typically around two weeks.

Trends in Community Corrections Programs (6/21/2013 – 11/22/2013)

End Date Electronic Monitoring Work Release STAR Day

Reporting Adult

Diversion 06/21/13 21 11 8 1 44 07/01/13 25 13 8 2 39 07/19/13 27 12 8 1 39 08/02/13 26 12 8 1 40 08/16/13 24 11 8 1 37 08/29/13 23 12 8 1 38 09/16/13 23 11 8 1 36 09/27/13 21 13 8 1 37 10/10/13 22 13 8 1 35 10/24/13 19 11 8 1 34

– – – – – – 11/22/13 19 12 8 1 29 AVG 22.7 11.9 8.0 1.1 37.1

• Participation in each program is fairly consistent across the recent period of time

covered by the table above. • Adult diversion participation did, however, drop from 44 to 29 total clients from

6/21/2013 to 11/12/2013, although this is not necessarily indicative of any changes regarding program assignment, as the decrease seems to occur in a



relatively short time frame. • The data in the table above is not a clear indicator of the uses of alternatives to

incarceration because:

– Some of the programs may be duplicative. Electronic monitoring, for example, may be combined with other programs.

– Moreover, some alternatives programs may be used for individuals who

would not have been incarcerated at all, either in a pre-trial capacity or post-sentence.

– Finally, STAR is really an in facility program that provides participants with

skills to keep them out of jail. • As a result, fewer than 20 individuals are participating in any alternatives to

incarceration in Rockingham County in recent months. As the information in the table demonstrates, the use of all alternatives to

incarceration is at relatively low levels in Rockingham County. At less than 5% of

individuals incarcerated, the number of participants involved in an alternatives program

is very low (many correctional systems operate at 2 – 3 times that level).

The purpose of the analysis, which follows, is to explore opportunities to expand

the use of alternatives to incarceration for pre-trial and sentenced individuals.

3. OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THE USE OF ALTERNATIVES AGAINST EXISTING / RECENT INMATE POPULATIONS.

The first critical step is to ‘test’ the detention system population against

‘reasonable’ criteria for release. This analysis takes the detention system population

and, assuming that the characteristics of this population is relatively consistent over

time in spite of variations in the total number incarcerated day-to day, applies a variety

of criteria for release to understand if there are people who are in custody who could be

released. Because Rockingham County utilizes relatively few alternatives to

incarceration the project team utilized a restrictive set of criteria for this assessment.



The criteria used included:

• For pre-trial inmates the criteria utilized included the following:

– No violent or sex related charges. – Total bail on all charges under $5,000. – No outstanding holds or warrants. – No prior failures to appear on a previous release from custody (or revoked

bail). – No prior violent or sex related convictions. – As a way to ensure that criteria not available in our file review was

considered no one who had been in custody for over 60 days would be considered. By this point an incarcerated person would have had several appearances in court where a release would have been considered.

• For sentenced inmates the criteria utilized included the following:

– No violent or sex related charges for which they are currently serving a sentence; no prior violent or sex related convictions.

– No outstanding holds or warrants from another jurisdiction. – No prior failures to appear on a previous release from custody.

– No long sentences (over 180 days) and no one with less than two weeks

remaining on an existing sentence.

The day on which this inmate ‘profile’ was conducted was Wednesday, January

29, 2014. On this date there were 235 pre-trial inmates in custody and 195 sentenced

inmates in custody for a total of 430. Of these, 41 females were in custody in other

detention facilities contracted in other counties. As a result, 389 persons were being

held in the Rockingham County Detention Center.

The result of this analysis is as follows:

• There were 9 individuals on the pre-trial side who were in custody and met very restrictive criteria for release. If these criteria were relaxed somewhat so



allowable total bails of $10,000 were considered the number of candidates for release would be increased by about 35% to 12 persons.

• There were 7 individuals on the sentenced side who were in custody and met

those restrictive criteria. Without the possibility for bail flexibility because they were sentenced there is no corresponding figure to the pre-trial side.

There are only modest opportunities to free up Detention Center beds through an

expansion of either pre-trial or sentenced alternatives to incarceration which involve

criteria which would be easy for the public and criminal justice system representatives to

consider. The following points should be considered:

• Even with very restrictive criteria Rockingham County could double the number of people who are in custody. While this expanded use of alternatives to incarceration would be insufficient to bring females who are housed in other county facilities into Rockingham County, it would allow for greater flexibility in housing decisions for males for classification purposes (e.g., for security, isolation, separation and other purposes).

• While less restrictive criteria would increase the ability to use a limited facility

better for classification purposes it would still not allow the conversion of a pod for the housing of females. As a result, the development of a female pod or separate facility is the only long term viable alternative available to Rockingham County.

• Opportunities to expand the use of alternatives on the sentenced side are fewer

that on the pre-trial side – over 55% of sentenced individuals are in custody with 12 month sentences. The number of persons in custody with charges that include violation of probation or parole or are termed ‘habitual offender’ are similar (44%).

• Opportunities to expand the use of pre-trial alternatives are only constrained by

the risks which the County are willing to take. • There are other reasons to consider expanding the use of alternatives to

incarceration, including:

– Modest reductions in daily costs including food, medicine, etc. – Reductions in risk associated with inmate violations, fights or other

incidents, medical events, etc. – Opportunities to expand programming relating to:



•• Dependency counseling. •• Vocational counseling and training. •• Community service. •• Other life skills counseling and training. •• Work. •• Restitution. •• Family and community cohesion.

For these reasons, the expansion of the use of alternatives to incarceration

should be pursued in Rockingham County. The Department of Corrections has recently

been authorized additional resources to manage alternatives to incarceration. An

expansion of the order recommended here would be well within common caseload

targets for these kinds of programs. RCDOC staff would monitor and supervise these

releases, with or without electronic monitoring, coordinate programs and function as

points of contact for the public, the releases and their families.

Recommendation: Expand the use of pre-trial and sentenced alternatives programs in a restrictive trial program with the goal of modest reduction in Detention Center populations. Once confidence has grown regarding these programs expand their use further. 4. THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD CONVENE A

MEETING OF ALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MANAGERS WITH A GOAL OF DEVELOPING PROGRAM CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY.

During the era of rapid detention system growth in New Hampshire and around

the country in the 1980’s and 1990’s it was common for counties to create ‘criminal

justice coordinating committees to manage criminal justice processes and detention

system populations. These committees provided a forum for discussing the inter-

relationships among justice system functions – enforcement, prosecutorial, defender,

detention and the courts. During this twenty year period these committees mitigated

some of the detention system increases possible through streamlining processes.



In the past few years, however, as justice and detention system populations have

stabilized or declined for a variety of reasons the frequency and urgency of such

committees and councils have declined throughout the country. Such a committee

exists in Rockingham County and they have addressed such issues as future detention

facility needs, including those for females.

Because of the magnitude of the opportunity and the lack of program familiarity

for Rockingham County, developing an expanded alternatives to incarceration program

should be the collective decision of all principal stakeholders in the justice system. This

process should be as follows:

• The Rockingham County Commissioners should ask the Criminal Justice Council to develop an alternatives to incarceration philosophy, program goals, policies and performance review mechanisms.

• Announce a Council meeting for the near future at a date at which all County

justice system stakeholders can attend. • The agenda for the CJC meeting should entirely be dedicated to creating a

comprehensive alternatives program to augment existing approaches and program in the County.

• Actions taken by the stakeholders in attendance is advisory but strongly

supported by the justice system actors in attendance. • The scope of the discussion should focus on the following issues:

– Criteria for different levels of supervision – including supervised through various methods versus unsupervised.

– How the release decision should be made and the type of staff support to

the judiciary needed to make the most informed decision. – How frequently reports are made to the judiciary about specifically

released individuals. – How overall pre-trial release performance should be reported to the

judiciary, other criminal justice system functions and the County.



– Desirable levels of supervision by staff or contractors in the electronic and field elements of the program based on a risk assessment of the individuals assigned.

– How these programs would be organized in the County – consolidated or

in different agencies (DOC and Sheriff) as they are currently. The purpose of these decision points is to initiate a process to develop a consensus of risk tolerance among County justice system agencies.

• A period such as three months from the initial meeting the principal justice

system stakeholders should re-convene to decide on the guidelines of the program.

The guidelines or model program developed will have the benefit of joint

development by all local justice system stakeholders. The importance of this buy in is to

continue to make sound decisions about who is in custody and who is released through

any release mechanism.

Recommendation: The County Commissioners should convene a Criminal Justice Council process to develop guidelines for the development of a comprehensive alternatives to incarceration program. 5. THE EXAMPLES OF OTHER NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTIES SHOULD

ENCOURAGE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY IN THIS EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. As described in the third chapter of this report, Rockingham County does not

need to go far to learn of opportunities to increase the use of alternatives to

incarceration as an appropriate way to deal with minor / early offenders and to mitigate

detention center populations and costs. The changes recommended in this report

should be viewed as evolutionary, not revolutionary. Rockingham County as part of its

review and consideration of expanded alternatives programs should visit and learn from

the experiences of these other counties. The project team learned of several

comparative items of significance for this review:

• Pre-Trial Release Programs: Several other counties (e.g., Hillsborough,



Strafford and Sullivan) have extensive pre-trial release programs involving the use of formal risk assessments and release criteria, staff supervised including both electronics and field, court support and reporting. Many of these are fee supported. In these counties the use of this program is more widespread than in Rockingham County.

• Pre-Trial Diversion: All of the counties surveyed by the project team, including

Rockingham County, utilized pre-trial diversion to impact the lives of first and/or early cycle offenders. All of these programs utilize formal criteria for eligibility and have staff involved in monitoring and supporting participants. Most of these programs are fee supported.

• Work Release: All of the counties surveyed utilized work release as an

alternatives and/or transitional strategy. Again, part of a comprehensive strategy of security management these programs are formally defined, are supported by staff and operational policies / reviews, and most are fee supported.

• Community Service: In most other counties in the State, ‘community service’

functions as a stand-alone program even if organized into their department of corrections. This is not the case in Rockingham County where it functions as part of work release. As an independent program a wider array of offenders can be productively cycled through the program for public service. Most counties in the State have far greater numbers of offenders in this program than does Rockingham County.

The more effective programs were either linked to or worked with the court

system directly, often using a research-validated risk assessment instrument at some

point during the process of assignment to the program– although this was not always

the case. Additionally, programs that were successful tended to be the most clearly

defined in terms of their requirements, policies, and overall objectives. Most

importantly, all of the surveyed counties believe that these programs impact recidivism

while affecting detention system populations.

rockingham county fr 7-11-14

Documents