PLANNING AND EVALUATING
PRISON AND JAIL STAFFING
VOLUME I
F. WARREN BENTON, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORE
DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1975-1979
OCTOBER 1981

This project was supported by Grant Number CB-3 from the National
Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of
view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice.

ABSTRACT
Planning
and Evaluating Prison and Jail Staffing has three
major purposes. The first is to identify methods of analysis and
evaluation of staffing levels. These include task analysis,
motion and time study, productivity auditing, outcome analysis,
process analysis, and comparative analysis. A specific method is
called the Multiple Methods Approach because several
presented,
staff evaluation techniques are independently applied. The report
that
an
necessary forms so
instructions.
and
provides
institutional manager may apply this approach. The second purpose
is to describe alternative methods of organizational structure
and shift or roster management for prisons and jails. Concepts
presented include traditional, project, and matrix organizational
unit management, as well as specific approaches to
structures,
staffing housing units. The third purpose is to document current
jails and
staff levels of twenty institutions representing
and large and small. The
prisons which are both new and old,
staffing patterns are presented and compared within the following
management,
support
business
administration,
categories:
operations, programs and services, medical and treatment, control
unit supervision, internal activity
points, perimeter security,
and yard, and external positions. In addition, summary tables are
presented illustrating rates of employment per hundred prisoners
including a survey of 162 prisons.
from several other studies,
The monograph is divided into two volumes. The first contains all
of the material except for the specific staffing patterns
themselves. These have been placed in the second volume.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION

1

A. INTRODUCTION
B. BACKGROUND

1
2

II. DETERMINING AND EVALUATING STAFF REQUIREMENTS

5

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. METHODS OF STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

5
8

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Task analysis
Motion and time study
Productivity auditing
Outcome analysis
Process analysis
Comparative analysis

c. SUMMARY

20

III. ORGANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL
POSTS AND POSITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
B. HIERARCHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Traditional model
Project model
Matrix model
Functional decentralization
Functional hierarchy
Unit management
Team model
Shift model

C. SHIFT PATTERNS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

8
12
13
14
14
17

23
23
23
23
25
25
27
28
28
28
28
29

Continuity: posts and positions
Calculation of coverage factors
Shift cycles
Shift patterns
Productivity improvement factors

V

29
30
35
36
39

IV. AN EXAMINATION OF SPECIFIC STAFFING ISSUES
A. INTRODUCTION
B. REVIEW OF STAFFING LEVELS
BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Administration
Business management
Support operations
Programs and Services
Medical and treatment
Control points
Perimeter security
Unit supervision
Internal activity and yard
External and other
Total positions

C. ADDITIONAL TABLES

43
45
45
47
49
50
53
55
56
57
60
61
62
65

V. IMPLEMENTATION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

43

73

INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AND EVALUATING STAFF LEVELS
EXAMPLE
APPLICATION TO POSTS
FINAL OBSERVATIONS

VI. APPENDIX

73
74
76
87
88
90

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BLANK TASK ANALYSIS FORMS

vi

CHARTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
A. INTRODUCTION
The most important and most expensive resource in a prison
or jail is its staff. Over one-half of an institutional budget
usually is spent for employee salaries and benefits. Thus, a
proper
staffing pattern is a necessary condition for the
achievement of most other institutional objectives,
and the
evaluation of staff deployment is the best approach to achieving
cost savings or productivity improvements. The goal of this
manual is to assist managers in the development and evaluation of
prison and jail staffing patterns. The material in this manual
should aid managers as they grapple with the basic but difficult
questions of "HOW many staff members are needed?", or"What is the
best way to organize the workforce?", or "How can we tell if our
staffing pattern is effective?"
Volume I discusses methods for determining proper staff
levels and organizational structures,
and presents information
based upon staffing patterns currently in use. For this project,
information on staffing was obtained from twenty jails and
prisons,
as well as from reports developed in previous projects
by other organizations. Summaries of the staffing patterns are
presented in Volume I, and specific and detailed descriptions are
presented in Volume II.
Chapter Two reviews methods of determining the appropriate
numbers of employees to devote to a task. Methods such as task
analysis and comparison are described with reference to specific
examples. After reading the chapter, the reader should understand
the
methods
and procedures used
for
relatively
simple
evaluations, and should be equipped to make better decisions
concerning more difficult problems of staffing.
Chapter Three reviews the organization of workers. Discussed
are methods of organizing the workforce, both in terms of
hierarchical structure, or chain of command, as well as in terms
of shifts so that the proper levels of employees are on duty at
all times.
Chapter Four reviews the staffing information from the
institutions included in the project,
according to specific
functional categories such as administration, unit supervision,
or control points. This allows for an examination of factors
which are uniquely important to specific areas of institutional
operation. Special attention is placed upon Unit Supervision
staffing or staffing for housing units, because housing areas use
between one-fifth to one-third of all positions in prisons.
Chapter Five provides a step-by-step example of a staffing
analysis,
and includes specific forms and procedures to enable a
manager to complete such an analysis.

1

Questions about staffing levels, as discussed in the manual,
occur during the planning of new facilities or
generally
programs, during budget proposal or justification processes, or
during the ongoing administration of a budget when cuts or
reallocations must be made. At such times, managers must justify
levels of staffing, or suffer cutbacks in funding, or fail to
receive even initial funding for a new project. This monograph is
designed to assist managers as they face difficult budget
situations and a variety of other staff management conditions.
individuals may use the monograph in different ways
Thus,
depending upon their situation. The following are some suggested
ways for applying the material:
A deputy warden, personnel manager, or security chief might
use it as a guide to evaluating the need for a change in the
In this case the
level of staffing in a particular program.
evaluation methods described in Chapters Two and Five would
be particularly relevent.
The planner or administrative assistant who is developing a
new program or institution might refer to Chapter Three on
and to the specific staffing
the organization of staff,
If the level of planning
patterns presented in Volume II.
were very specific, to the point of defining specific
the methodology in Chapter Five would
numbers of positions,
be important.
A trainer conducting a training session for middle managers
might use the entire monograph as a resource for examples
requesting
manager
A program
and
content material.
additional staff for a new or existing project might be
requested by the Warden to conduct an evaluation process
such as that in Chapter Five to justify this budget request.
correctional managers have
Over the last several decades,
emphasis was
In the 1960's,
been challenged in various ways.
placed upon the development of programs and services to fulfill
In the 1970's,
the goals of resocialization or rehabilitation.
the
problems of rapid population growth called for rapid
expansion of correctional systems. In the 1980's, it appears that
Budget cuts,
productivity
improvement may be the challenge.
externally imposed standards, and the aspirations of correctional
professionals to improve services will call for the careful
examination of institutional operations. Since it is unlikely
that large infusions of new funds will come fro many external
administrators will be required to find resources from
sources,
within.
BACKGROUND
complexity of a prison staffing pattern and the
The
difficulty of effective staff management generally escapes those
outside of corrections. The citizen or legislator not yet exposed
to prison management may view a correctional institution as if it
and as if its
like a bank or a store,
operated for one shift,
2

only task were confinement security. There are several aspects of
a correctional institution staffing pattern which make it both
unlike these free-world institutions and very difficult to
manage.
First,
a correctional institution must support the complete
spectrum of the activities of a small city. There are systems for
food service, utilities, medical care, law enforcement, industry,
and most other aspects of life in the free world. Each of these
responsibilities must be implemented by the staff in such a way
that the institution functions as a whole. As a result,
the
positions and shift patterns of many different industries and
professions must be integrated.
It is difficult to manage a
restaurant,
or a medical clinic, or a factory, or a counseling
service. The challenge of a correctional institution staffing
pattern is to develop a capacity to provide all of these services
as parts of one organization.
Second, a correctional institution must operate on a
continuous basis. Many posts and positions must be staffed around
the clock.
In an insurance company,
for example, an employee is
hired to do a particular job.
If he or she must miss work one
day, the workload usually is deferred until the employee returns.
In a correctional institution,
if a correctional officer must
miss work, because of illness, training obligations, unauthorized
absence,
or other factors, the post generally must be filled, or
an active adjustment must be made in some other officer's duties.
The task of supervising prisoners cannot be deferred until the
officer returns. In order to provide for continuous operation of
these types of activities, the shift cycles and patterns of a
correctional institution must be complex.
Third,
the population of a prison presents obvious unique
challenges. While the staff of a prison is providing supervision
and basic services,
the prison population has a continuous
opportunity to plan dangerous and ingenious activities such as
escapes,
disruptions, covert organizations,
and acquisition of
contraband.
In response,
the staffing pattern of a prison must
work consistently and thoroughly, and must successfully integrate
security
functions with many other skilled activities and
professions. As a result, there is less opportunity for informal
and spontaneous approaches to work problems. The shift patterns
of the food service staff must be coordinated with those of the
industry, education, medical, security, and administrative staff.
In the free world,
a restaurant staff would not have to consider
such factors.
Finally,
the employees of a correctional institution are
held to a relatively high standard of performance because of the
inherent danger to themselves and to the public should errors
occur allowing an escape or major incident. Further standards are
imposed externally by the courts,
inspection agencies,
and
accreditation processes. As a result, regardless of the number of
employees or the size of budget available,
a prison staffing
pattern must be stretched,
compressed,
extended, and creatively
3

managed to accomplish the
requirement is perhaps
and managing
evaluating,
the greatest challenge of

basic responsibilitiesof a
the greatest challenge in
a prison staffing pattern,
correctional administration

4

prison. This
developing,
and perhaps
in general.

CHAPTER TWO
DETERMINING AND EVALUATING STAFF REQUIREMENTS
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The most basic issue in developing a new staffing pattern,
or in evaluating an existing one, is the determination of whether
a post or position is needed at all. Coverage factors,
shift
cycles and patterns, and organizational
structures all are
important final determinants of the total level of
staff
required.
However,
the first and most important determinant is
the level of need for a post or position in the first place.
The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the basic
approaches to such an evaluation. The chapter is conceptual,
establishing the methodoligical and theoretical foundations for
the step-by-step approach presented in Chapter Five.
There are several important concepts which structure the
process of
determining
basic
needs:
local
variation,
productivity,
and diminishing returns. Each of these factors
influences the ultimate determination of the appropriate level of
employees for a given function.
Local
variation: It is important to recognize that there
are no simple and final answers. Each prison and prison system
operates under procedures which vary greatly. As a result,
institutions which appear to be similar can have markedly
contrasting populations and functions. Terms which have apparent
uniformity of definition,
such as "medium security",
"intake
process",
"cellhouse shakedown", or "classification hearing",
generally describe processes which vary from system to system and
prison to prison. For example, a shakedown, or search for
contraband, in a cellhouse can include the inspection of all
cells on a frequent basis, or a few cells on a random basis. The
inspection itself can involve a brief examination of the cell by
one officer, or an intensive item-by-item search, complicated by
the presence of the prisoner exercising numerous procedural
rights.
Therefore, the determination of a proper staffing level
of an institution generally has to respond at some point to the
actual workload requirements of the institution, based upon the
responsibilities and mission of the institution.
Productivity: This is a term which has been used frequently
during recent years,
but often is not used with precise
definition. According to Webster's dictionary, it refers to "the
quality or state of yielding or furnishing results". As a
management concept, productivity refers to the relation between
"inputs", or resources such as time,
supplies, or money,
and
"outputs",
such
as
products, or work tasks
completed.
Productivity improvement occurs when inputs into a work process
'are reduced, or the outputs of the process are increased.
Generally,
productivity is measured by dividing outputs by
inputs. A simple example from a correctional institution involves
5

automation of some gates which were previously operated manually.
six gates might be operated by six
Prior to the consolidation,
officers at any one time. The productivity index would be six
divided by six, or one. After consolidation and automation of the
gates, the six gates could be operated by three officers. The new
index would be six divided by three, or two. This is a 100%
increase in productivity. The are many actual examples of
productivity
improvements throughout the field of corrections
today. The following is a list of some common approaches to
productivity improvement:
Introduction
systems ;

of

technology

computer

to

prison

record

Replacement of many small surveillance towers with one or
two high, advanced design towers: or even the elimination of
towers altogether;
Automation,
substituting
sensing devices;

machines

for

labor,

including

Negotiation of improved work practices through collective
bargaining, eliminating inefficient procedures in return for
employee benefits:
Relocation of employees and prisoners adjacent to one
another through unit management and advanced prison design
reducing wasted time moving prisoners from one
concepts,
location to another:
Training employees to accomplish work tasks with a lower
so that the number of correctly completed
level of error,
tasks per employee is increased;
Review and evaluation of outdated forms and procedures
eliminate unnecessary or duplicative work tasks.

to

three types of approaches to
there
are
Generally,
improvement. The first is to simply increase
productivity
workload levels without hiring additional staff or increasing
this can result in productivity
supply budgets. Up to a point,
especially if many inefficient or unnecessary
improvements,
practices exist prior to the workload increase. This occurred
nationally when the massive population increases occurred in the
latter half of the 1970's. The problem with this approach is that
or
lose
employees can become overworked and quit their jobs,
genuine
productivity
Thus,
morale and do poor quality work.
improvements do not always occur. Often, work standards are
simply reduced, so that a classification interview, for example,
becomes a brief and mechanical conversation, or the physical
structure of a facility becomes overused.
A better type of productivity improvement is to evaluate or
reorganize work tasks,
so that employees can complete them more
and tasks of an
procedures,
efficiently. As the goals,
6

methods must be continually
institution change over time,
evaluated to reduce duplicative or unnecessary tasks. In a prison
which has operated in a stable and traditional manner for a
relatively long time, many such procedures or traditions will
Institutions subject to rapid change in recent years will
exist.
usually the result of new
also have many such procedures,
Productivity
procedures duplicating older ones to some extent.
improvements resulting from this type of streamlining process
tend to improve the quality of work production and the morale of
employees.
Another type of productivity improvement results from the
introduction of new technology into work processes. Simple
electric
examples include the substitution of self-correcting
typewriters for manual ones, or word processors for typewriters.
More complex and expensive examples include the use of new
devices such as computers in record processing, or the use of
electronic movement sensing devices, or improved communication
systems. Finally, many new facilities incorporate materials which
increase visibility, reduce maintenance costs,
require lower
levels of staffing, or reduce energy consumption.
A final and important note about productivity is that it
must not become an end in itself. The history of corrections is
littered with examples of institutions or programs which were
planned with the reduction of operating costs as the primary
objective.
Examples include the famous panopticon cellhouses at
the Illinois State Penitentiary at Stateville, designed in a
circular fashion to permit one officer to observe hundreds of
cells at once, but without any capacity to respond to what he
sees. Other examples include the original plans for many prison
farms, characterized by unrealistically low staffing levels, and
Productivity involves doing what
goals of self-sufficiency.
but doing it in an efficient manner.
needs to be done,
Productivity is not an excuse for not doing important and
necessary tasks.
Diminishing returns: Many correctional administrators have
come to realize that the addition of employees to solve a problem
There are
sometimes can create more problems than it solves.
several reasons for this.
First,
the addition of employees creates unanticipated
increases in workloads throughout an institution and a system.
Most of the increases occur in five categories: training,
and
supervision,
personnel management,
fiscal management,
building maintenance and development. In a typical architectural
for each day of direct
law firm, or consulting firm,
firm,
service to a client by an employee, there are additional expenses
equal to one or two days salary of the employee,
generally
associated with administrative overhead, provision of space, and
other requirements. While a prison can operate more efficiently
the
than this because of the relative stability of its workload,
substantial
simply adding employees can have
process of
unanticipated effects.
7

an increase in the number of employees working on a
Second,
given problem, or in a defined area, increases the potential for
If five
interpersonal and communication problems geometrically.
people work on a problem, there are thirteen separate one-to-one
relationships which must be reasonably satisfactory. There has
to be general agreement as to the role or jobs of each person,
antagonisms must be smoothed over, and agreement has to be
If that staff is
achieved sometimes when disputes arise.
the number of
and therefore doubled,
increased to ten,
relationships is increased to over 40, which practically triples
an
interpersonal problems. To the extent that
potential
and
most
infighting,
organization
internal
staff
has
increasing the staff will
organizations have some of this,
greatly increase the problems.
Third, if the nature of the work to be done is general, such
as the supervision of a cellhouse,
as opposed to piecemeal, such
an additional factor must be considered. A
as sorting mail,
series of fixed increment additions to resources
achieves
successively
lower levels of relative improvement in resource
when improvement is measured as a percent of the
inputs,
for example, a
resources of the previous period. Consider,
cellhouse of 100 prisoners,
and a day-shift staff of four
officers.
This is a ratio of one officer for every twenty-five
prisoners.
the
If the number of officers is increased by four,
ratio is reduced to 1:12.5. A 100% increase in staff yielded a
50% reduction in the ratio.
Assume that this lead to a
satisfactory improvement in staff and prisoner morale, and in
basic conditions; so that the legislature decides to increase the
staff by four again. This time,
this is a 50% increase in staff
even though the absolute increase in employees and related staff
is the same as before. The reduction in the ratio of officers to
prisoners is reduced by 34% rather than 50%. When one also
considers that the potential for interpersonal conflict has been
increased by almost about 1100%
over two years (from 6
relationships to 661),
it is conceivable that the institutional
staff may have begun to wonder why the 200% increase in staff has
not yielded a 200% improvement in day to day operations of the
cellhouse.
B. METHODS OF STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS
The determination of appropriate staffing levels has been a
central concern of managers since long before the development of
the production line. There are several basic approaches which
have been employed and tested for many years, most often in the
private sector. These approaches have also been employed within
the field of corrections,
although not so universally. Each of
from
these
methods will be reviewed along with examples
correctional institutions.
1. Task Analysis
Task

analysis is a relatively simple and direct
8

method

to

determine the appropriate level of staff for any stable and
repetitious work activity.
It is commonly employed in civil
service systems to identify the type and number of employees
required for a given function in an agency or unit.
The process of task analysis begins with the identification
and
measurement of the work to be done. The task auditor
analyses the job, breaking it down into its component parts. For
a records clerk may have to retrieve files, file files,
example,
and place material in files. Each of these tasks occurs at a
certain rate on a typical day, perhaps 200 retrievals,
200
filings, and 400 placements of materials into files. This defines
in a quantified manner the work to be done. Next,
the task
auditor conducts an observation of the performance of one or more
clerks in the performance of this work. The auditor determines,
through repeated measures of tasks,
the typical amount of time
required to
complete each task,
and also the amount of time
devoted to other activities,
such as rest, personal activities,
conversations with supervisors or other employees,
and other
activities.
Finally,
the auditor multiplies the number of each
type of task to be done by the typical time periods required to
complete them,
and adds an appropriate amount of time for other
activities.
In the above example,
filings and retrievals might
take two minutes each,
and placements might take three minutes.
Thus,
the total time per day for direct tasks would be 2000
minutes, or 33.3 hours. The auditor might have found that a
typical records clerk spent 40 minutes per hour on these tasks,
and, based upon several recommendations,
could spend 50 minutes
per hour,
a total of 40 employee-hours per day are required. On
this basis,
five file clerks would be needed. A more complex
study would include an analysis of peak time periods,
as well a
supervision requirements and shift pattern alternatives.
A task analysis is a simple and logical approach to a
workload which is stable and which consists of a series of
repeated tasks.
It has two basic flaws, however. First, it does
not work well for more generalized tasks, a type which frequently
occur in prisons. For example, a correctional officer in a tower
could theoretically be able to observe a certain distance,
and
over a certain scope of area. The typical tower may not fully use
this capacity,
due to design features of an institution or other
factors. A task analysis could not propose many practical
solutions to this problem. Another example is a team of officers
supervising a dining area. Certain tasks could be measured
discretely,
but the most important aspect of the job of those
officers,
deterring incidents and disturbances,
cannot be
measured in the same manner as filing a file. The irony is that,
to the extent that the need for the officers can be measured,
such as in the numbers of incidents, more officers are probably
needed.
Nevertheless, task analysis can determine relative levels of
post efficiency. Assume, for example, that a post must be open 16
hours per day. A post efficiency rating of 50% would mean that
half of the time that the post was open the officer had a task to
9

complete which was described in the post orders. The other half
of the time the officer was waiting, or simply observing areas in
a general way. In such a circumstance, additional duties could be
assigned to that post without requiring additional officers or
reducing the availability of the post in emergencies.
The
second
problem with task analysis is that
the
methodology tends to underestimate the amount of staff required
to do a job.
It tends to assume that optimal levels of worker
and this is not typically the
performance can be generalized,
case. Measures are sometimes optimistic because the worker, when
audited,
attempts to make a favorable impression on the auditor.
Also, to the extent that the worker controls the pace of the
work, optimistic proposals to reduce non-task activities tend to
not succeed.
The following is an example of a task analysis conducted
within a correctional agency.
It illustrates some of the steps
involved in the process. There is also another example in Chapter
Five which uses forms designed for use by a correctional manager
in a prison or jail setting.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections conducted a task
analysis based evaluation of the accounting and restitution units
at the administrative offices.
(Joanie Callison & Gary Parsons:
Accounting and Restitution Evaluation (Oklahoma Department of
Corrections,
Oklahoma City,
1978). The accounting unit was
responsible
for pre-auditing all vouchers and claims from all
units within the entire department prior to forwarding them to
the State Budget Office and Treasury for payment.
It was also
responsible
for the coordination of budget development,
the
conduct of internal audits within the Department,
and the
bookeeping
for
the central
administrative
offices.
The
Restitution
unit
for the
was responsible
processing of
restitution and probation fee payments from probationers across
the state. Such payments are made by mail.
The methodology of the project included the following:
1)flow charting of the major work flows, 2)calculation of volumes
of workload for major activities,
3) daily activity audits on
employees within the unit,
job
and 4) calculation of a
descriptive
index for each employee, which includes measures of
satisfaction with the work.
The task analysis of the Restitution unit provides an
example of the process. The overall work of the unit was defined
through flow charting, yielding a list of the tasks which, taken
as a whole, constitute the workload of the unit. The frequency of
these tasks was calculated over a representative time period, and
the workload for a representative week was determined. Then, by
conducting daily activity audits on the employees in the unit,
and by timing the amount of time needed to complete tasks, an
allowance of time per task was identified. The following is a
summary of the workload of the unit.

10

TABLE II-l: RESTITUTION WORKLOAD SUMMARY
TASK
receipts
post ledgers
treasury deposits
payment checks
payment letters
default letters
new accounts
restitution accts
rest. defaults
phone calls
log checks
sorting & filing

NUMBER

MINUTES

TOTAL

752
805
11
155
5
37
63
5
165
170
155

1
1
60
2
5
1
2
40
5
4
2

752
805
660
310
25
37
126
200
825
510
310
1260
5820
97

TOTAL
TOTAL HOURS

seven persons were employed to complete
In this unit,
and yet there was a
hours per week of work,
approximately 97
substantial backlog of work in the unit and additional staff had
been requested.
In fact, within the last twelve months, several
employees had been authorized to achieve the staff of seven, but
production had not increased. Through the analysis of workflow
and the job description indices, the project team identified
supervision and task organization as the major reasons for the
lack of production. Responsibility for tasks was not clearly
assigned, and the work process was not organized efficiently. For
there was little specialization of functions, so that
example,
and clerk typists
high level employees were sorting mail,
performed an amount of typing which was not greater than that
performed by higher level employees.
The audit recommended that the staff in the unit be reduced
from seven to six,
and that the remaining staff be
by one,
organized into two teams of an account clerk and a typist, with
both teams supervised by an accountant who would also supervise a
typist clerk. The overall supervisor for both units was also
replaced.
the backlog within
Once this reorganization was completed,
the unit was relieved, and the six employees absorbed a rapidly
increasing workload thereafter.
This task analysis provides an example of the type of work
situation for which task analysis is appropriate. W o r k l o a d
consists of a quantifiable and repetitive series of tasks,
permitting the reasonably precise determination of staff needed.
It should be noted, however, that even though the analysis showed
that there were 97 hours of work to be done per week, which
six employees
could presumably be accomplished by 2.5 employees,
First,
were authorized. This was done for several reasons.
vacations, sick leave, training, and other types of leave must be
11

this
considered. As will be illustrated in the next chapter,
generally results in a reduction in actual work production per
3.0 to 3.5 employees
employee by about 20 to 30 percent. Thus,
would actually be needed to generate 2.5 employees on duty on any
task analysis as a
as was discussed above,
given day.
Second,
process tends to underestimate the time necessary to complete
work, because of unpredictable factors. Third, a supervisor was
required,
and a span of control of five is appropriate for this
the workload was projected to increase
type of work. Also,
rapidly because the program was popular with the judges and
district attorneys.
In Chapter Five,
a specific process will be
which builds upon this example.
2.

illustrated

MOTION AND TIME STUDY

Motion and time study (M&TS) is a more refined version of task
analysis.
Some authors,
in fact, consider task analysis to be a
short and simplistic version of motion and time study. There are
several good books on M&TS:
Marvin E.
Mundel,
Motion and Time Study: Improving
Productivity,
(Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall,
Ralph M.
1966).

Barnes,

Motion and
Time- Study,
-

(New York, Wiley,

Barnes defines MT&S as follows:
Motion and time study is the systematic study of work
systems with the purposes of (1) developing the preferred
system and method--usually the one with the lowest cost: (2)
standardizing this system and method;
(3) determining the
time required by a qualified and properly trained person
working at a normal pace to do a specific task or operation;
and (4) assisting in training the worker in the preferred
method. (Pg. 4)
MT&S evolved historically from the "Scientific Management"
movement which existed around the turn of the century. The effort
focused primarily on manufacturing processes,
attempting to
evolve the most efficient production methods for industries. In
Barnes book,
very detailed instructions are provided
for
developing efficient procedures, including the following:
Methods to arrange production lines and work areas so as to
reduce movement to a minimum.
Methods to analyse human and machine operations so as to
reduce inefficient effort,
including an extensive analysis,
as an example, of the proper method of using a floor mop.
Methods of studying motions, including filming of processes.

12

Principles for motion economy as related to the use of the
human body,
such as approaches to using both hands at once
on a task.
Methods to timing processes, and for developing appropriate
time allowances for the steps in a task.
Sources of predetermined time-motion data.
It should be apparent that MT&S is a highly developed
technology. It requires trained personnel to conduct studies, and
therefore can be time consuming and expensive. Such a highly
refined effort is beneficial when a limited number of tasks are
to be continually employed in a work process, especially when
expensive machinery is to be developed and purchased. When tasks
change often, or then a job consists of many different tasks,
then the effort of MT&S may not pay off.
In corrections, there are few jobs which involve the
repetitive completion of a few limited tasks. Generally,
these
can be found in two general areas: control stations which operate
gates,
communication systems, or observe surveillance equipment,
or in support functions such as accounting offices or prison
industries. As a rough guide, the administrator might look for
jobs which are limited to about ten specific tasks which are
completed each at least ten times per hour. T h u s , a n o f f i c e r
operating several gates might meet this guide, while an officer
conducting a cellhouse inspection might not.
3. PRODUCTIVITY AUDITING
Productivity auditing is much like task analysis. It differs
in two respects. First, the unit of analysis is the productivity
index, which is a broader and more flexible measure of the
non-labor
resources required to complete a task including
resources,
allowing comparisons between alternative approaches,
including automation. Second, it attempts to achieve improvements
in productivity, whereas the methodology of task analysis must be
"stretched" by a creative auditor to accomplish this.
A productivity audit of the record system used above as an
example would start with the measurement and calculation of a
number of indices,
such as the numbers of various types of file
translating
the
perhaps
completed per day,
transactions
transactions into a time unit or point system. For example, the
filings might be worth two points each, and the placements of
records into files three points each. On a typical day, the unit
Nonwould do 2000 points of work, or 400 points per employee.
task time would constitute 2.66 hours per day per employee, or
the productivity audit would have covered much the same area.
however, by
continue,
The
productivity audit would
developing additional measures which would incorporate operating
expenses and non-labor resources.
it would explore a
Then,
variety of methods to improve productivity, including automation.
13

main difference between the productivity audit (PA)
Thus,
the
and the task analysis (TA) is that the TA asks "HOW many
employees are needed to get this job completed?", whereas the PA
asks "How can this work been done more efficiently?".
PA and TA can be integrated into a single process. Any
productivity
improvement will be accomplished in one of three
ways: 1) methods will be improved, reducing the time required to
complete a task; or 2) an overall process will be redefined,
eliminating or reducing the number of tasks to complete a job, or
3) a new task will be substituted for one or more old ones,
streamlining a process. Each of these approaches can be expressed
in a task analysis format as a number of tasks each requiring a
certain amount of time to complete. A productivity audit would
seek to show that one approach was more efficient than another,
and that the cost of the equipment or new methods involved would
be recouped by the greater efficiency of the revised method. This
is illustrated more completely in Chapter Five.
4. OUTCOME ANALYSIS
Outcome analysis infers the need for staff on the basis of
results and other external measures. This approach would suggest,
for example,
that a prison with many incidents, much overtime,
and poor staff morale,
is more likely to need added staff than a
prison which appears to be running smoothly.
In the records
system example,
outcome analysis would look to complaints from
employees within the unit, or from those who are served by the
unit. If there were few complaints, then it would be assumed that
it was staffed properly.
The deficiencies of this approach are very clear. Such
an
approach tends to reward incompetence, and directs resources at
problems without clear evidence that a lack of resources is the
precise problem which needs remedy. The problem may be in the
management' of the unit. Also,
it offers no methodology to
identify a unit which might have too much staff. Conceivably a
unit which is running smoothly could be operated with a lower
level of staffing without a sacrifice in performance.
There are distinct advantages,
however. First, outcome
analysis is a more efficient method than TA or PA in terms of the
cost to implement the monitoring system. While TA and PA require
an auditing team, outcome analysis is a generally passive
methodology, which requires only waiting for problems to be
articulated by others.
This is the most typical method of staff analysis in
today in corrections.

use

5. PROCESS ANALYSIS
Process analysis attempts to compare staffing levels to
prescriptive
standards.
Sometimes such standards are found in
court orders. A simple example is a caseload ratio. One might
14

adopt a standard of 35 cases per counselor in an institution. The
actual
caseloads of counselors. could be compared to this
and if the caseloads are larger than 35, then
standard,
additional counselors may be needed. This approach is very
simple,
and also very efficient to apply because compliance can
be
The key to the
ascertained easily and inexpensively.
effectiveness of this method is the specificity and validity of
the standard.
The problem with this approach is that such standards are
difficult to draft in a manner which respects the differences
between types of situations, programs,
and institutions. As a
result, very few quantified standards exist which attempt to
define an adequate staffing pattern. In the Fourth Chapter, some
of these will be reviewed and discussed.
American
Correctional Association
Commission on
The
here.
Accreditation
Standards deserve particular attention
Generally,
these standards describe levels of performance, but
not levels of staffing other than in a few instances. A specific
institution might apply these standards to itself and identify
areas of staff deficiency. However, generally some other type of
staff analysis process must be applied to translate the standard
and the institutional situation into a quantified recommendation.
This is very reasonable,
as such standards cannot and should not
attempt to address the universe of correctional institutions in
specificity.
In 1980,
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
published a report entitled "Correctional Policy and Standards:
Implementation Costs in Five States".
(Greiser et al., Institute
U.S Govt. Printing Office
for Economic and Policy Studies,
contract 1980-311-379/1368, Washington, D.C., 1980). The report
attempts to estimate the cost of complete compliance with CAC
accreditation standards in five states.
The analysis of standard number 4090 provides a good example
of process analysis. Standard 4090 states that new employees of
correctional institutions should receive at least 80 hours of
initial orientation and training. Colorado estimated that an
average of 120 employees per year would require such training.
That number multiplied by 80 hours comes to a total of 9600
training hours per year generated by this standard. An analysis
of all of the remaining training standards
(2053, 3065, 4091,
2054,
3066, 4092, 4093, 4097, 4098, 4183, and 4271), a total of
146,800 hours of training was estimated. This is equivalent to
approximately 80 full-time employees at any one time.
Based upon the types of training to be accomplished,
Colorado identified $261,000 in personnel costs for training
staff,
for approximately fifteen employees. In addition, fiftytwo officers were requested to provide relief coverage for the
officers in training. Non-correctional officers were not included
as it was assumed that their responsibilities
in this estimate,
could be deferred while in training, or covered by other staff as
15

additional duties. The following is the percent of total training
hours generated by various types of requirements:
TABLE 11-2: PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING BY GOAL
New employee orientation................. 6.5
Inservice training......................272
Management training ...................... 6.5
Training for direct contact employees...27.7
Emergency training.......................
5.4
Other (first aid, weaponry, etc.).......26.7

%
%
%
%
%
%

In all of the states examined in the report, it is
interesting to note that an average of 24% of all estimated costs
to comply with training standards were "participation costs", or
costs to provide relief staff for employees who are attending
training.
This illustrates the importance of including training
requirements in the calculation of coverage factors, which will
be illustrated in the next chapter.
As an example of process analysis, both the advantages and
disadvantages of this method are illustrated in the report. The
training standards certainly provide a benchmark for determining
the process of
the size of training program needed. However,
estimating the cost to accomplish that training produced highly
disparate results. A comparison of Connecticut and Colorado
provides an example.
TABLE 11-3: COMPARISON OF TRAINING COSTS
CONNECTICUT

COLORADO

1978 BUDGET
$32,000,000
1979 POPULATION
2,000
1978 EMPLOYEES
1,564
TRAINING COST EST. $342,000
EST./EMPLOYEE
$219

$38,000,000
2,300
978
$1,224,000
$1,252

STATE

figures are not always completely
In any comparison,
comparable,
and it is recognized that there could have been
changes in certain statistics. However, the estimates are widely
disparate,
even though two relatively comparable states are
attempting to comply the same standard, with the assistance of
the same agencies, LEAA and its contractor.
The explanation for this disparity might be an example of
another deficiency of process analysis. It could be that one
state has a much higher turnover rate of employees, or that it
proposes to provide a much better type of training,
or that it
shows more real costs in its estimates than the other state. A
reliable
process
standard
rarely
is
so
specific
that
interpretations can be made of its implications.
Process standards relating to personnel requirements
are
generally more vague than standards relating to more concrete
16

such as a fire code requirement, or a ratio of shower
topics,
heads to prisoners, or a space standard for a single cell. The
Public Health Association's
American
"Standards for Health
n
Services in Correctional Institutions (Washington, D.C., APHA,
1976) provides a classic example of an ambiguous personnel
standard: "The health staff shall be of such a size as to be able
to afford to any prisoner in the institution who needs it,
quality health care that meets these standards." (pg. 111). It is
readily apparent that this statement would not provide any
specific
guidance beyond the functional standards provided
elsewhere in the book.
6.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Comparative analysis infers the adequacy of a staffing
another
pattern by comparing it to a comparable situation in
institution. The effectivness of this approach is dependent upon
the appropriateness of the institution selected for comparison.
The most frequently used comparative statistic is the staffto- prisoner ratio. As of 1978,
for example,
the American
Correctional Association reported,
in the ACA Directory, numbers
or prisoners and employees for a large number of states. Here is
a selection of rates of employment per 100 prisoners based upon
these statistics:
TABLE 11-4: RATES OF EMPLOYMENT PER 100 PRISONERS, 1978
Alabama......................39
California ........... ..43
Connecticut .......... ..50
Florida.....................53
Kansas ............... ..51
Kentucky...............39
Massachusetts.........114
Michigan...............37
Mississippi............42
New
York..............58
Ohio...................30
Oklahoma...............49
Rhode Island..........106
Texas..................14
Utah ................. ..67
There are several reasons for using a "rate per 100
prisoners" rather than a traditional staff to prisoner ratio.
First,
it is a whole number, rather than a decimal. Second, the
rate avoids the confusion of the higher ratio indicating less
staff per prisoner, and the lower ratio indicating more staff per
prisoner.
There are a number of major problems with the use of
to prisoner rates or ratios:
While

they do measure numbers of employees,
17

they

staff
do

not

Thus,
two
measure the tasks which employees perform.
cellhouses might have the same staff-to-prisoner ratios, but
in one unit the staff might actual do more supervisory
activities,
while in the other the staff might be assigned
to posts which are not interactive with the population. As a
result,
the two similar ratios might produce markedly
dissimilar results.
Most ratios or rates do not consider coverage factors. Thus,
have comparable
numbers of
might
institutions
two
correctional officers, but one might require more training
days per year, and might provide more annual leave days. As
a result, the actual numbers of officers on duty at any one
time would differ.
Most ratios or rates do not consider the shifts when
so that the same rates might result
employees are on duty,
from staffing patterns which deploy staff in markedly
different ways.
Such ratios or rates do not fully consider facility design
and mission which significantly influence the numbers of
employees needed to complete a given task or general
function.
Nevertheless,
there are some important benefits of a
comparison analysis approach as one of several methods to study a
problem:
It is
They are more accessible than most other measures.
for example, to compare rates of employment of
easier,
accounting staff with those of another institution, than to
conduct two task analyses of the units.
They are generally more objective because they are simpler.
Two or three different persons could compare rates of
employment for several functions,
and each arrive at the
same results as to the measures. The same persons might not
arrive a similar results for a task analysis because of the
greater complexity of the measures to be developed.
They are easier to communicate and understand as management
devices, because of their simplicity.
Chapter
comparative
Four
of this report
uses
measures
extensively, providing rates of employment per hundred prisoners
for many categories of positions in many institutions. The
methodology which has been developed reflects some attempts to
alleviate problems associated with comparative measures:
The measures for each institution are broken down by
functional category,
avoiding some of the problems which
result
from comparing institutions which have similar
numbers of staff and prisoners, but which employ their staff
for different types of functions.

18

Measures are provided which show the actual numbers of
employees on duty for specific shifts,
cutting through
misimpressions
created by differing leave or training
policies.
The latter parts of this report serve as one example of
use of comparative measures in staff analysis. However,
following study is another example of such an approach.

the
the

In 1980, a state correctional agency conducted an internal
study of such rates,
following a report by a state budgeting
agency which suggested that the number of employees in that
be reduced. The project identified a
state's prisons could
number of factors which influence the rates. The study was based
upon data from over 100 institutions in seven states. While
reasonably reliable, the findings should be considered tentative
until a more nationally-based study can confirm or dispute them.
Today, however, this is some of the best data available. No names
of states are provided because this was an assurance provided to
the states which agreed to provide data to the state conducting
the study.
Economies of scale accounted for some differences. The study
reported that systems with more than two-thirds of their
population in facilities with populations of over 1500 beds
had an average rate of 13, whereas systems with less than
two-thirds of the population in large facilities had an
average rate of 29.
The length of the average program day also was associated
with rates of employment. Systems with maximum security
prisoners out of cells for more than eight hours per day had
an average rate of 29, whereas those with an eight-hour
policy had an average rate of 13.
I n m a t e idleness
was associated with lower rates of
correctional officer employment. This data is much less
disparate
highly
clear,
but,
if
one excludes one
institution,
the units with more than 10% idleness had a
rate of 18, and those with less than 10% had 26.5. Including
the disparate state, the rate for those above 10% is 23.
Assaults on staff occur less frequently when there are fewer
employees The institutions with over ten assaults per
thousand employees had an average rate of 29 officers per
100 prisoners, whereas those with a rate of less than 10
assaults per 1000 prisoners, had an officer employment rate
of 13.
Homocides within prisons tend to occur more frequently in
prisons with low rates of employment. States with rates of
more
than one homocide per year per 5000 average daily
prisoners had an average officer employment rate of 17,
whereas states with rates of less than one per year per
10,000 ADP had an average employment rate of 30.
19

General assaults on prisoners tend to occur in prisons with
lower rates of employment. Institutions with fewer than 20
assaults per year per 1000 prisoners had an average rate of
officer employment of 29. Those with more than 20 assaults
had an average rate of 19.
The conclusions presented in this project deserve evaluation in
projects which are available for independent analysis. Until such
projects have been completed,
these findings can be only
considered as tentative.
C. SUMMARY
The following are some suggestions as to the types of
situations one might encounter in correctional institutions where
various methods of work analysis might be appropriate.
TASK ANALYSIS, OR MOTION AND TIME STUDY
Use when the job to be evaluated consists of specific tasks,
and when the tasks are uniform and repetitive. As a general
guide, a job should consist of no more than ten tasks
completed at least ten times each per hour.
Use task analysis most of the time, but use M&TS when the
implications of error are substantial,
such as
when
investing in major new equipment or when designing new
facilities or major renovations.
PRODUCTIVITY AUDITING
Use when considering replacement of one method or approach
with another,
such as substituting a centralized records
unit for several decentralized ones.
Use when considering the costs and benefits of automation.
OUTCOME ANALYSIS
Use for an overall, general analysis of all areas of the
staffing of an institution, on an ongoing basis. General
measures of performance can identify possible problem areas,
but do not prove the need for added staff by themselves.
PROCESS ANALYSIS
Use when your goals or procedures are clearly defined,
as when you are attempting to meet a standard.
Use when attempting to implement a single standard
multiple locations, such as a new program or procedure.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:

20

such
at

Use to develop an overall perspective on staffing levels -global indications of strength or weakness.
discover possible alternative
Use
to
approaches to
functions, by identifying institutions which accomplish
comparable tasks with markedly different levels of staff.
Use to justify staffing levels or recommendations to public
officials. Other methods may also be useful, but officials
will usually inquire as to what other institutions are doing
with comparable functions.
The objective of this chapter has been to introduce correctional
officials to possible approaches to determining the numbers of
staff needed for functions within their institutions. The next
chapter will review how to organize that level of staffing
according to shifts.

21

CHAPTER THREE
ORGANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL POSTS AND POSITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter will review methods of organizing the work of a
correctional institution, so that it can be accomplished by a
team of employees. There are two dimensions to the organization
of a workforce:
Hierarchical and functional organization: The staff must be
coordination, and
organized so that there is command,
supervision.
Normally, this requires the establishment of a
written chain of command as well as the organization of
personnel into functional groups.
The staff must be organized with
Temporal organization:
respect to time. Normally,
this requires the assignment of
people to shifts, and the scheduling of employment SO that
the necessary numbers of employees are on duty at all times.
The remainder of this chapter will deal with these
of staff organization.

elements

B. HIERARCHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION
there are three ways to organize the chain of
In concept,
the project model,
command of a prison: the traditional model,
In reality,
and the matrix model.
these models are expressed in
such as the unit management concept, or the
several forms,
military concept.
The TRADITIONAL MODEL is based upon some concepts first
articulated by Max Weber during the 19th century. Weber's concept
of a bureaucracy had four basic elements:
The positions should be grouped according to specialized
functions, to enable efficiency and supervision.
The positions should be arranged hierarchically, so that
each employee except for the ultimate top administrator is
supervised by another employee.
The responsibilities of positions should be defined by rules
so that each employee's duties are clearly
and procedures,
defined.
Positions should be depersonalized, to facilitate the
replacement of employees when this is necessary, and to
permit the selection of employees based upon explicit
qualifications, rather than subjective or personal factors.
Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of
Since this model is the prevailing
traditional organizations.
23

approach in
problems.

corrections today,

it is useful to

examine

these

major advantage for a prison system is that
A
the
model
traditional
clearly assigns
responsibility
to
employees. This is, of course, critical to the management of
any large and complex organization, but is especially
important in the management of security.
Another advantage to the traditional model is that the
depersonalization
and merit selection of employees is very
important to a correctional system which is attempting to
move away from previous patterns of political involvement in
institutions. Thus, a warden seeking to wean a local
politition
from an inclination to patronage can reinforce
that effort by a traditionally organized prison.
A disadvantage is that the traditional organization is not
very flexible. As a result,
situations requiring the
coordinated effort of employees who are in functionally and
hierarchically distant units,
such as a problem which has
medical,
environmental,
and security
dimensions, is
difficult to organize without violating the principles of
the traditional organization. Thus, while a procedural
manual may call for certain specific patterns of command and
communication,
a supervisor often has to resort to informal
arrangements which violate these patterns. While this may
solve a problem or cope with an emergency, it makes for
difficult
relations with supervisors who
might
feel
circumvented,
and it results in situations where procedures
do not fully describe actions.
This can sometimes be
difficult to explain in a courtroom.
Another disadvantage is that the communication patterns of a
traditional
organization
are
not
always
feasible.
Theoretically, if a low level employee wishes to communicate
to another low level employee through the chain of command,
and
if
the two employees are in
functionally
and
hierarchically distant units,
then the message may have to
go all the way up and down that organizational
hierarchy
before it can be delivered. To the extent that, as an
alternative,
the
employees communicate directly,
the
accountability
and
supervisory
advantages of
the
organization are reduced.
As a result of these problems, prisons often cope by
stressing either hierarchy over rules and procedures, or the
reverse.
Thus,
one can find institutions which are run strictly
according to rules, and which as a result are very bureaucratic
and inefficient; or institutions which are run according to
highly delegated hierarchy, so that the institution appears to be
a series of independent fiefdoms run by middle managers. Both of
these approaches cope, to an extent, with the problems of
traditional organizations,
but not without a reduction in
efficient and coordinated operation.
24

The most common example of the traditional model is the military
model, where the prison is modeled after a military organization.
Sometimes the names of positions are revised to reflect a more
civilian approach, the the essential concept is intact.
A second approach is the PROJECT MODEL. While this can be a model
for the overall structure of an organization, it is more
generally applied as a temporary structure to cope with an
immediate problem,
or
as
a limited devise to enable the
In general,
the
coordinated response to a specific problem.
project model consists of the organization of personnel according
an employee might be assigned to Group A for
to a task. Thus,
task A,
and Group B for task B. In corrections,
there are some
common examples.
The warden might assign employees drawn from many areas of a
prison to develop a new procedure for classification. While
these employees work for there respective supervisors,
for
the purposes of developing the procedure, they work for the
leader of the task force.
Employees might be permanently assigned to an institutional
classification
committee. Such a structure violates the
literal principles of a traditional organization, but it
does resolve problems of communication and coordination.
The
project
organization solves some
problems
of
a
traditional organization, but it does not represent a good way to
organize an entire institution,
precisely because it lacks
accountability.
A third approach is the MATRIX MODEL. A matrix organization
is
called by that term because there are two
or
more
organizational
structures,
one of which is generally presented
vertically like a traditional organization, and one of which is
presented horizontally, with the chain of command flowing from
rather than from top to bottom. As a result, most
left to right,
employees have two or more supervisors rather than one.
In an
firm,
architectural
for example,
an employee might report to a
project coordinator for the particular project he or she is
working on,
as well as to a functional coordinator for the type
of specialty the employee performs.
a question of
Thus,
electrical engineering would be referred to that supervisor,
while a question of project schedule would be referred to the
project coordinator. When a conflict occurs,
the employee would
attempt to resolve it with the two supervisors.
If that is
then the ultimate resolution occurs at a higher
unsuccessful,
level, such as the supervisor of the two coordinators.
The general advantage to this model is that complex problems
tend to get resolved at the level where an employee is most aware
of all of the dimensions to the problem. This is especially
useful when very different disciplines must be coordinated,
such
as medicine and classification or security.
It is also useful
25

when the work of an organization changes frequently.
In corrections,
there are some good examples of matrix
although they are generally not
structures,
organizational
Usually employees are assigned to one
described as such.
with instructions to "coordinate" with another. This
supervisor,
The
avoids the appearance of violation of unity of command.
where
a
corrections
of
situations
in
following are examples
matrix organizational structure is appropriate.
Unit management involves the organization of much of an
institution's
staff into teams associated with housing
units. The advantage is that this tends to make a large
institution resemble a smaller one in aspects which relate
to the daily lives of prisoners. Coordination problems can
occur, however, in relating within-unit functions with
such as security. This is especially
external functions,
during
acute when considered across shifts. Theoretically,
still
employees within units are
night shifts,
the
responsible to their team leaders who are not present,
just
as they would be if the cellhouse were a small independent
institution, and the employee was a shift supervisor, or the
the situation within units
In reality,
only one on duty.
must be coordinated throughout the institution. As a result,
the unit staff is generally either supervised by, or
responsible to "coordinate with" the shift supervisor of the
institution.
This is the type of problem that a matrix
is intended to resolve, because it allows the
organization
chain of command to be described the way it really is
intended to work, without either violating the goals of unit
management, or creating informal supervisory relationships
institutional
which
are
not clearly articulated in
procedures.
Medical services presents another example. With respect to
the staff must respond to
medical functions and decisions,
medical supervisors. However, basic logistical and security
functions must also be coordinated, requiring coordination
with non-medical staff such as shift supervisors. The
traditional organizational structure cannot describe such as
situation very well,
and generally must subordinate one
function to another. The matrix organizational model is
clearly appropriate here.
In planning or evaluating the organizational structure of a
to
prison,
there are some basic ideas and recommendations
consider.
These are not experimentally proven principles, but
rather are the reflections of the author, based upon some notable
successes and failures in dealing with these problems.
the
It
is
developing
probably
best
to
begin
by
organizational structure along the lines of the traditional
model,
resorting to project and matrix structures when the
traditional model does not adequately define the necessary
relationship.
26

Attempt to limit the span of control, or number of people
supervised by a supervisor, to between three and seven. In
the staffing pattern descriptions at the end of the report,
the span of control of each employee is measured. As is
apparent,
many institutions violate this principle, and it
source
of some of their problems. A large span of
the
is
control is only appropriate when a high level of automony
can be expected from each employee supervised, or when all
of the employees are doing a simple repetitive task which
requires very little supervision. Sometimes a large span of
control reflects unresolved organizational conflict, where a
large number of employees want to maintain the impression of
accountability and access to a high level official. It
rarely works well, however, to organize an agency in a
manner which is not functionally practical. The result will
staff
and a lot of
be great lack of coordination,
infighting.
A manager may wish to distinguish between "line employees"
and "staff employees". Line employees are those through whom
passes the chain of command. These people have specific
authority and generally supervise other people with specific
authority.
Staff employees help line employees, but do not
have actual authority. Sometimes they act in the capacity of
their supervisor, but the authority and responsibility rests
with the supervisor.
When an organizational
structure is developed, a major
decision involves the hierarchical division of the employees, or
the arrangement of the workforce into manageable groups. There
are five approaches which this project has identified.
This approach avoids
FUNCTIONAL
DECENTRALIZATION:
the
The
appearance that one group has been favored over another.
staff is divided into many functional units according to
similarity of job. Then a supervisor is selected for each group.
The chart which results suggests many equal units with equal
authority.
Generally,
the actual hierarchy is defined by the
degree of access and attention the supervisor gives to each
group. The result is that the supervisor often works excessively
so as to avoid neglecting any one area,
and the staff tend to
compete and fight for access, or insulate their teams from the
rest of the organization by creating little kingdoms. This
approach makes everyone happy when the chart is drawn up, but
creates ill feelings and poor coordination later on.
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY: Under this approach, one functional
area,
usually security, is designated as predominant, and all of
the remaining areas are made subservient to it. The justification
is that the one functional area is the most important. In
reality, however, all of the functional areas have at least some
essential purposes,
and this approach places people who are not
qualified to accomplish those essential purposes in a position
where they are responsible for them. The result very often is
27

crisis management. High level administrative effort is devoted to
the main function, while the subsidiary functions are attended to
when a crisis makes a malfunction apparent.
UNIT MANAGEMENT or LOCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION: Under this
the staff associated with housing units,
approach,
and related
program and support staff if their function is associated
primarily with a given unit, are grouped by unit. The following
are some general advantages of this approach:
Many aspects of life for the prisoner population are less
like a large institution and more like a small institution.
Prisoners associate with smaller groups of staff
and
inmates.
Decisions can be made at a lower level,
with
more
participation by the prisoners,
or at least a better level
of awareness of the decision process.
Mid-management
Better jobs are created for employees.
opportunities open up because of the positions associated
with unit team leadership. Also, each employee has a better
sense of the significance of his or her specific job role in
relation to the overall functioning of the unit.
There are also some disadvantages. Unit management will probably
require
and creates some
potential
somewhat more staff,
coordination and communication problems between staff associated
with unit and non-unit functions.
TEAM MODEL: For small institutions, it is sometimes possible
structures,
to adopt more flexible and informal organizational
especially in less structured and secure units such as halfway
houses or group homes.
This may also be feasible as an
organizational model for one or two unit teams under a unit
employees are expected to
management concept. Under this model,
assume responsibility
for the operation of the institution or
unit,
and are expected to cooperate in accomplishing that goal.
The organization at any time is determined by the work to be
done,
with only very minimal guidance by the organizational
supervisor.
Clearly, a very large institution, or a functionally
complex one such as a jail,
could not reliably function under
such a model.
SHIFT MODEL: In some institutions, the first division of the
organizational
structure is by shift, with perhaps one extra
division for support functions. Thus,
there might be a day
division,
an evening division,
and a night division. The clear
advantage to this approach is that the leadership for each
division is routinely available when most of the workers are on
duty.
The disadvantages
are that divisions tend to
lack
so that the evening operations are
coordination with each other,
not consistent with the night operations,
and that important
functional operations are not grouped together. However, at some
point in the organizational structure,
there does have to be a
28

including some typical examples of days involved:
Holidays..........16
Annual leave......10
Annual training . ...5
Illness leave ... ...5
Days in court ... ...2
TOTAL.............38
must
be deducted from the
total
This
total
leaving 223 days (261 minus 38). This
theoretically available,
(dividing 261 by
results in a simple coverage factor of 1.17,
1.17
223). This means that for every hour a post is open,
employee hours must be acquired in order to staff the post and
and other obligations. However, to
provide for leave, training,
the coverage factor could be increased
be truly accurate,
slightly to allow for rounding of positions which are not fully
required in whole numbers. For example, a unit team might require
8.78 positions, but practicality would call for the employment of
nine people. Such rounding can either be accomplished by rounding
up as required as the pattern is specified, on a position-byposition or post-by-post basis, or by adding a small increment to
the factor initially.
explicit. An
Several
examples might make this more
institution is about to open a new multipurpose program facility,
from 1:OOpm to
which was to be open from monday to friday,
9:OOpm. Assume that five officers must be assigned to the
facility when it is open. The facility is open a total of forty
so a total
hours per week, and five officer posts are required,
If the
of two hundred officer hours per week are required.
officers work a forty-hour week, then one might conclude that
this would not provide for
five officers are required. However,
and the other factors illustrated above.
training,
leave,
Assuming that the institution has a coverage factor of 1.17
as
then 234 (200 multiplied by 1.17) actual
illustrated above,
or just about
hours of officer time would have to be acquired,
six officers, rather than five.
A specific coverage factor for any institution must be
calculated specifically for that institution. The following is a
list of common time deduction factors:
annual leave
sick leave
holidays
military leave
training periods
authorized union activities
unauthorized absence
unanticipated time in court
Several of these categories must be calculated based upon the
experience of the institution. These include sick leave or
military leave, where the total amount of authorized time might
31

not be fully used by the employees. A routine pattern of
unauthorized absence must also be recognized for as long as it is
allowed to continue. Correctional officers are sometimes required
to be in court when they are sued by prisoners. To the extent
that this occurs to even a small number of officers relatively
frequently, then this must be reflected in the coverage factor.
It may be desirable to calculate separate coverage factors
for different types or ranks of officers. Supervisory officers
may have a higher factor. Officers in their first year of
employment may have a higher factor due to training requirements
and adjustment to the job. The estimation of the staff for a new
program employing new officers could actually require a higher
factor than the average factor for all officers.
An extended coverage factor considers and additional problem
a
when
determining the number of employees required for
continuous post. A tower,
for example,
is often staffed around
the clock,
seven days per week. An extended coverage factor
applies the basic coverage factor to the number of hours certain
types of posts are typically open.
A tower open all of the time is open 168 hours per week,
based upon 7 days multiplied by 24 hours. A total of 195.56 hours
of employee time must be acquired to staff it, however,
because
of the basic coverage factor (1.17 X 168). Thus,
about five
officers would be required to staff a tower around the clock in
this example (196.56 divided by 40 hours per officer per week).
The following is a table illustrating the total hours per
week of certain common types of shifts. An extended coverage
factor for those shifts would be calculated by multiplying the
total hours by the basic coverage factor for your institution,
and then dividing by the number of hours an employee works per
week, not considering overtime.
24-hour, 7-day...............168
16-hour,7-day...............112
8-hour,7-day................
56
16-hour,5-day................80
Assuming the basic coverage factor illustrated above, which is
1.17, the following are the extended coverage factors which would
result in our example:
24-hour, seven day:
l6-hour, 7-day:
8-hour, 7-day:
16-hour, 5-day:

4.914
3.276
1.638
2.340

The following is a computation table which may be useful in
making these calculations:

32

The
supervision.
for multi-shift operation and
mechanism
such as non-unit custody
organization of some of the staff,
for example, along the lines of this model, would provide
staff,
for the multi-shift supervision of these personnel.
the hierarchical organization of staff is
In summary,
important to the successful operation of an
critically
Even the most carefully designed staffing pattern
institution.
can fail if it is not organized properly.
C. SHIFT PATTERNS
The general objective of a shift pattern is to structure
work hours to achieve the necessary coverage of posts and
positions to accomplish the work to be done. The next section
such as
will review many approaches to structuring work,
alternative shift cycles and patterns,
as well as the concepts
which underly them, and their relative utility.
1. CONTINUITY: POSTS AND POSITIONS
the term "post" refers to a job,
Throughout this report,
generally the responsibility of a correctional officer, which is
and duties: but which may be
defined by its location, time,
filled interchangeably by a number of officers. A control center,
tower, or cellhouse assignment can be considered a post. A
"position"
refers to a job which is held by a specific person,
such as the business manager, a secretary, or a plumber. As in
circumstance,
terminology used to describe a complex
any
but
the
general
concept
the
distinctions
are
blurred,
sometimes
is important for reasons which will become apparent.
Continuity is a basic and important distinction between
positions and posts. A post generally has tasks associated with
it which cannot be deferred, they are either done or not done.
For example,' a post at the supply dock at a prison must be filled
or supplies cannot be received. Many posts are associated with
tasks which must be done twenty-four hours per day,
every day,
continuously. Many other posts must be filled more than eight
hours per day, the length of a conventional shift. As a result of
the requirement for continuous or semi-continuous accomplishment
of the tasks,
the determination of the number of persons to be
employed to fill a post must include consideration of the total
hours the post is open, plus a factor or contingency to cover for
vacations, other leaves, employee turnover, training obligations,
and other factors. The calculation of such a contingency or
coverage factor will be reviewed later in this chapter.
A position,
in contrast, is a much simpler concept. The job
of "Business Manager", for example, is generally intended to be a
thirty-five to forty hour job.
(Business managers reading this
chapter may laugh hysterically at this point.) If a business
manager goes on vacation, his or her responsibilities are either
deferred until he or she returns, or they are delegated to
another employee who temporarily does two jobs. Thus, no coverage
29

factor must be calculated to fully staff a position. Generally,
employees in positions work a standard shift pattern,
such as
"normal office hours", from approximately 8:OOam to 5:OOpm.
Use of a coverage factor may be necessary to determine the
number of positions necessary to accomplish 'a function.
Even
though the job may not require continual duty, time for leave and
training does reduce the time available for normal duties. If,
for example, a given function required 80 hours per week of work
to complete, two workers would never complete it if the worked 40
hours per week, but also took leave time and attended training.
Thus, a coverage factor must be considered in determining the
numbers of employees needed to get the work done. Chapter Five
will illustrate this more precisely.
A generalization is that posts are filled by correctional
officers,
while
non-correctional
positions are filled by
officers. This is generally, but not completely, true. Exceptions
would include a correctional officer working as one of several
mail clerks, or as a locksmith. These tasks would not necessarily
require a coverage factor. A high-level supervisory correctional
officer,
such as the chief officer, would not be filling a
continuous post. Non-correctional
officer employees such as
paramedical
staff might fill continuous posts.
In that example,
one paramedic might have to be on duty at all times. The same
might be true of a clerk at a reception desk.
The provision of continuous coverage can generate the need
for a substantially larger contingent of employees than one might
initially estimate.
to fill two positions would
For example,
require two employees. For reasons which will be explained later
in the chapter,
to fill two twenty-four hour continuous posts
such as two towers would require approximately ten to twelve
employees. If a staffing pattern does not consider these factors,
it may be insufficient to accomplish the work to be done.
2. CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTORS
A coverage factor is the ratio between the number of hours a
post is open, and the number of hours of employee time which must
be acquired to fill the post during the open hours.
Since the
post must be filled each hour it is open, extra employee time, or
"relief time" must be acquired to cover for sick leave, vacation,
holidays, training obligations, and other factors.
Theoretically,
an employee working a shift consisting of
five days per seven day week, would work 260 days per year, based
upon a fifty-two week year. This is calculated by subtracting 104
days (52 weeks times 2 days), from the 365 days in a year.
Precisely,
the employee could work 260.89 days, based upon a
365.25 day year considering leap years.
From this total,
one must deduct for days which are not
actually worked, due to tradition, legal and contractual rights,
and management objectives. Categories of such days are listed,
30

COVERAGE FACTOR CALCULATION SUMMARY
EXAMPLE

STEP
1.

Regular days off per employee per year
(usually 52 weeks per year x 2 days off
per week) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

Remaining work days per year, which is
365 minus #l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

216

3.

Vacation days off per employee per year.

10

4.

Holiday days off per employee per year..

16

5.

Average number of sick days taken per
employee per year.......................

5

Average number of inservice training
days per employee per year..............

3

Additional initial training days for
each
new employee beyond
inservice
training in #6 above....................

10

Percent of employees employed one year
or less . . . .............................

20

Number of other days off per year,
such
as for union
meetings,
litigation,
military leave,
special assignments,
funeral leave, injury, etc..............

2

Total days off per year equals #3+4+5+6
+9 to which is added #7 multiplied by
#8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36+2

Number of actual work days per employee
per year equals #2 minus #l0............

223

12.

Coverage factor equals #2 divided by #lO

1.17

13.

Seven-day coverage ratio equals
#13
multiplied by 1.4, which is 7/5.........

1.64

Continuous coverage ratio equals #13
multiplied by 168, and divided by the
number of hours an employee works each
not including overtime, which is
week,
usually 40 . . . . . . . . . . ...................

4.91

2.

6.
7.

8.
9.

10.

11.

14.

33

Some methods of calculation vary from that presented above,
and the following are some alternative approaches and their
rationales:
method decreases the actual work
One
days
(#ll)
by
for example, .9275,
multiplying it by a downtime factor of,
to allow for lunches and breaks. This report suggests that
such factors be accounted for in the design of posts and
positions,
since coverage for lunches and breaks must be
actually achieved through a routine -assignment of an
employee.
It is the general philosophy in this report that
routine jobs should be accounted for as duties of posts and
positions, while non-routine and non-job factors such as
vacations should be accounted for in a coverage factor.
Unless
this distinction is closely
followed,
double
if breaks are provided
accounting will occur. For example,
for in the coverage factor,
and if a post is created in the
usual manner to cover for officers on break by rotating from
post to post,
the personnel for this post would have been
provided twice -- once through authorization of the post,
and again through the coverage factor on all posts. As a
in
an
result,
such
a system would tend to result
overestimate of staffing needs by five to six percent.
Some methods define the coverage factor in such a way as to
provide for coverage around the week as is illustrated in
#13 above. Actually, a coverage factor is an abstract ratio
which is applicable to any unit of time,
such as an hour,
and day or a year. This author prefers to calculate the
abstract ratio and then apply it to convenient units of time
for the work to be done.
In some systems,
employees work 35 hours per week,
rather
In developing a coverage factor in such cases,
than forty.
it is important to consider how the work schedule is
managed. Usually,
since it is inefficient to attempt to
schedule continuous operations on the basis of anything
other than a three-shift day,
either employees are given
overtime pay for the additional five hours per week, or they
are given additional annual leave as compensatory time. In
the overtime case,
the coverage factor would be calculated
and the additional
on the basis of a 40-hour five day week,
overtime would be managed as a salary bonus. Under the
annual leave method,
the shorter work week would be
expressed in the coverage factor as a greater number of
annual leave days.
Some methods include factors such as learning curves
(the
time required for an employee to learn to do a job up to
standard).
This author,
for the reasons stated above,
suggests that such factors be considered in the design of
jobs and posts, but that they not be considered in the
calculation of coverage factors. The number of positions
needed to staff a post at a given time should take into
consideration
and the typical
the difficulty of the work,
34

level of employee competence achieved. This results in a
number of employees on duty adequate to accomplish the
required workload.
Some methods include the time needed to fill vacancies into
the coverage factor, although this report does not recommend
it. The coverage factor should describe the number of
employees needed to accomplish a given level of work. The
inability of a given agency to produce that number of
albiet very real,
employees is an entirely separate,
problem. The vacancy problem is best accounted for by the
calculation of a separate ratio -- the total authorized
positions
divided by the average level of employment
achieved. If one multiplies the authorized positions by this
ratio,
it yields a hypothetical number of positions which,
if used as a basis for hiring decisions, would in time yield
a number of actual employees close to the authorized level.
The reason for calculation of a separate ratio is to avoid
the wrong impression that the hypothetical number of
positions -- the hiring goal -- is the actual number needed
to do the work. An additional practical problem is that
inclusion of the vacancy time in the coverage factor would
probably result in the funding of positions during time
the
periods when, according to the calculation method,
positions are vacant.
It is important to remember that use of coverage factors
carry management responsibilities. If positions are authorized on
the assumption that certain levels of training are to be
for example, then a roster management system should be
achieved,
implemented to assure that this occurs. Roster management is not
within the scope of this monograph, but it is an ability which
should accompany the use of coverage factors.
3. SHIFT CYCLES
There are two basic types of shift cycles commonly used in
correctional institutions. There are numerous other types of
shift cycles and patterns which are not commonly used, but which
Institute for Public
could be used. These can be found in:
Program Analysis: Work Schedule Design Handbook (U.S. Dept. of
1978). This
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.,
publication is highly useful for any official who must regularly
organize a workforce into shifts. The most typical is the seven
day cycle, based upon a seven day week. This type of cycle is
In this type of cycle,
also typically used is private industry.
are repeated every seven days for most employees.
shifts
Employees primarily working relief for other employees might work
on a more random schedule.
The basic advantage of a seven day cycle is that it
corresponds with the organization of the rest of our society.
Schedules of other family members, day care help, and commercial
activity can be synchronized with the schedule of the employee.

35

The alternative type of cycle is the six day cycle,
sometimes referred to as "four and two scheduling". While on the
seven day cycle the employee would typically work five days and
get two off, on the six day cycle, the employee works four days
and gets two off, but gets no holidays. The basic advantages of
the six day cycle is that it provides coverage automatically on
holidays, and that it rotates employee days off. The disadvantage
is that it does not correspond with general practice in most of
and generally it is inappropriate
for
the rest of society,
and administrative employees who need to work in
professional
communication with other employees in other agencies who work a
conventional 5&2 seven day week. In some institutions,
the
correctional officers work a 4&2 schedule, and the professional
and administrative staff work a 5&2 schedule.
The two types of cycles roughly produce the same number of
work days in a year, depending upon the number of holidays
The seven day cycle occurs 52 times per year and
allowed.
generates 261 days per year for work, minus holidays. The six day
and generates 244 days for work,
cycle occurs 61 times per year,
or 17 fewer days. Depending upon the number of holidays, there is
a difference of five to ten days per year. This difference can be
managed in several days,
including reduced leave, or the
requirement of overtime, or the lengthening of shifts by one-half
hour to provide for overlap between shifts,
or by requiring
attendance by employees at training programs on the off days once
every month or so.
There is no definitive evidence that one cycle works better
than the other. A generalization is that the seven day cycle
coordinates better with the outside world and professional and
administrative
staff, while the six day cycle relates somewhat
more
conveniently to the actual problems of operating a
correctional institution.
4. SHIFT PATTERNS
Employees typically work about forty hours per week. Shift
patterns represent methods of structuring and dividing this time
across a shift cycle. Conventionally,
employees work for five
days per week, for seven to eight hours per day.
This type of shift pattern, however,
does not always
correspond with the actual duration of work tasks, or with the
leisure time preferences of employees, especially in a field such
as corrections. For example, a certain post may be operational
for ten hours per day, but may inefficiently consume two eight
hour shifts to staff it, resulting in marginal utilization of an
employee for six of the sixteen hours of the two shifts. These
employees are working, but the tasks may not really require the
six extra hours of effort. A workweek consisting of four ten-hour
days could staff the ten-hour post on any day with one employee
rather than two. Depending upon the number of days of the week
the post is open, and the degree of need for the marginal six
hours, the workhours, and the cost, of staffing the post could be
36

reduced by up to 37.5%. This is based upon a reduction from 112
hours per week (7 days times 16 hours),
to 70 hours per week (7
days times ten hours).
Obviously,
such a technique would only work in a limited
number of circumstances. However,
the example illustrates the
importance a well designed shift cycle and pattern to the
efficient operation of a correctional institution. A productive
and efficient operation is generally the result of many small
improvements taken together over time,
rather than any one major
change or basic original plan. If a manager could implement one
successful productivity improvement project per month,
saving 42
hours per week as illustrated above, over a year that manager
would have created the equivalent of approximately twelve new
employees,
to be devoted to new operations, or to enable cost
reductions without service cuts.
There
are
five
approaches in industry
and
public
administration to the management of work hours. The feasibility
of these concepts should be examined in correctional institutions
as well.
The first concept is the FOUR-TEN PLAN or compressed
workweek, which is a simple label for the concept of establishing
longer shifts for fewer workdays. In corrections, this concept is
applicable to posts which are open for more than one conventional
shift,
but less than two. Typical examples are recreation areas
which are open in the afternoon and evening, backup officers in
housing areas during peak movement periods,
or posts associated
with activities which take eight hours, but which require an hour
of set-up before and after. For example,
if prison industries
were to work prisoners for a strict eight hour day as has been
suggested in some recent studies,' an officer supervising such an
area might need to work a ten hour shift to cover the post and to
inspect the area before and after work hours. The alternative
would be to pay overtime, or to use two officers for the post,
one coming in early, and one staying late. Depending upon the
precise requirements of the post, and the ability of the
institution to productively use the marginal time of the second
officer, an extended shift concept might be the best choice.
The second concept is called FLEXTIME. Under this approach,
for example,
employees working a day shift in a records area,
would be required to be at work from 1O:OOam to 3:00pm, but could
start work as early as 6:OOam and leave as late as 7:00pm,
provided that they work eight hours per workday,
or forty hours
each employee must plan his or
per workweek.
In some programs,
her hours in advance with approval by the supervisor. Others
simply require documentation of the hours worked. Flextime has
obvious advantages for employees, because it permits them to use
their leisure time more efficiently.
However, in certain
instances it can also enable improvements in productivity. Assume
for example that the records unit in the above example has a
variable,
but somewhat predictable workload. An eight-to-five
fixed schedule would always provide the same number of employees,
37

regardless of workload. Flextime would permit the supervisor to
increase staffing prior to parole hearings or at other times of
In addition, work patterns could be restructured so
peak demand.
that checking out of files could be done during high demand
hours,
and refiling of files, or original filing of new
documents,
could be done at off-peak hours. This would probably
productivity because the work would flow in one
increase
direction, in or out, resulting is a more smooth flow of employee
traffic in the work area. Another advantage is that the records
unit would be open more hours per day at no added cost. This
could conceivably help other units within the institution to
become more productive.
third
The
concept is to evaluate
SHIFT
ASSIGNMENT
This
concept is
not
single-ended in
VARIATIONS.
its
recommendations:
there is no one best way to implement it. The
basic idea is to critically evaluate the rationale for the
assignment of particular employees or operations to particular
shifts. Here are some factors to be considered in such an
evaluation.
Psychological studies have indicated that worker capacities
suffer when they work highly variable shift patterns, such as one
day on the day shift, the next on the night shift,
and the next
on the evening shift. Thus,
an attempt should be made to assign
an employee to a particular shift,
and only rotate it once every
two or three months, if necessary. (See Koosoris, Max, Studies of
the Effects of Long Working Hours Washington Bureau of L a b o r
D.C.: Government
Statistics Bulletins 791 and 971A (Washington,
Printing Office, 1944).)
Assignment to shifts by seniority or by some arbitrary
method is equally undesirable, however, because it can increase
employee turnover by placing new employees in the least desirable
work circumstances, and because it limits management's ability to
assign personnel on the basis of capacity to do a particular job
well.
To a limited extent, shift assignment variations can be used
by management as an incentive for improved productivity.
It is
especially useful in times of tight budgets, because it is a nonmonetary, yet potent, incentive.
The assignment of certain functions to unusual shifts can
sometimes improve productivity. In a congested area, or an
overworked unit, breaking down the workforce into two shifts can
and improve each employees ability
sometimes relieve congestion,
to get a job done. This idea is especially useful in functions
involving paper-processing. Such an approach can also sometimes
avoid the need for a physical expansion of a physical plant
devoted to such an operation.
Finally,
some
functions
having special security or
operational requirements,
such as exercise or programming for a
protective custody unit, often work better when operated during a
38

such as late at night. Prisoners can get access to
quiet shift,
resources and areas not usually. available to them, without
compromising security or classification objectives.
In each of the above approaches,
special incentives may be
needed to motivate employees to work special hours. Several
approaches are discussed in the following article: Nanda and
"Hours of Work, Job Satisfaction, and Productivity", in
Browne,
PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW, Volume II, No. 3, New York, Center
for Productive Public Management, 445 W59th, New York, 10019).
The fourth method is an old one which might deserve
That is the use of PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT. There
reconsideration.
are two reasons why this might be desirable. First,
an employee
working a shorter shift could be used during a period of peak
demand in an operation, without the expense of employment during
non-peak hours. A part-time employee might be substituted for a
full-time one. Second, the employment of part-time personnel may
give an institution access to a potential workforce at a time
when pay rates or other incentives for fulltime employees are not
sufficient to fill all authorized positions. This may become
increasingly important when private salary and wages increase to
cover inflation, but public salaries and wages do not.
At the Minnesota Correctional Facility at St.
Cloud,
students are hired as part time correctional officers. They are
used to supervise a recreation program during the evenings for
four hours. Two half-time employees can cover the program all
days of the week,
as well as provide for their leave time,
because the one full time position, divided as two half time
positions, provides a potential of ten four-hour periods per
week. This is sufficient to cover the seven days as well as
leave.
If a fulltime position were used,
the same level of
coverage could not be achieved.
The fifth alternative shift pattern concept is the SPLIT
SHIFT. The type of pattern is typically used in the restaurant
industry, where work demand peaks at mealtime. Under such a
system,
for example, for three hours at
an employee would work,
lunchtime,
and for five hours in the evening, with a three hour
break between the two periods. This has clear advantages for the
because he or she pays for employees only for those
employer,
hours where demand is greatest. The value of this pattern for the
employee is less clear. For example,
in the above illustration,
the employee commits eleven hours per work day to work, unless he
or she can productively use the three hours in between. This
would probably depend upon whether the employee resides near to
work,
or whether the worksite is near to shopping or other areas
where the employee might typically need to go to anyway.
In evaluating possible changes in work hour patterns at an
institution, a manager should keep in mind the basic ways in
which such changes could improve productivity.
First,

alternative

patterns
39

of work hours

can

make

the

number of employees on duty at any time correspond more
closely to the actual work requirements at the time. Slacktime is reduced.
longer periods of work can increase the ratio of
Second,
for example, an
productive time to preparation time. If,
institution counts an employee as reporting for duty when he
the process of
or she first enters the institution,
reporting for duty,
shift briefings,
and assuming posts
could take up to an hour per day. On an eight hour day this
would represent 12.5% of the shift time, while on a ten hour
day this would represent 10% of the shift time. This
relatively small differences can become expensive if they
generate overtime, or if they create the need for two shifts
of personnel to do work that could almost be accomplished by
one.
Third,
variations in work hour patterns can be used as nonincentives for employees to become
monetary,
no-cost
productive in other areas. For example,
employees in a
clerical area showing the greatest productivity could be
given the first opportunity to participate in a flextime
such incentives
program. At a time when budgets are tight,
can be valuable tools.
Finally, variations in work hours can contribute to increased
levels of employee satisfaction. Higher morale can cause
greater
productivity and lower attrition rates,
enabling
savings in employment and training costs of new employees,
while retaining the advantages of an experienced workforce.
Increased levels of employee satisfaction can occur as a
result of the following factors.
hours to
can
tailor
their
work
allow
Employees
accomplishment of personal goals. These may be leisure
pursuits, personal activities such as shopping or banking,
or family responsibilities such as picking up a child at a
day care center. With the increased incidence of families
where both spouses are employed,
the ability to tailor work
hours more flexibly will become increasingly important.
Alternative work hour patterns can have direct economic
advantages for employees. For example, if an employee has to
drive to work a significant distance, working four ten-hour
rather than five eight-hour days, can result in a 20%
days,
savings in gasoline and vehicle wear and tear. Assuming that
an employee drives 25 miles to and from work, which is not
unusual in a rural area, and assuming that it costs about 20
eliminating a trip per week
cents per mile for the trip,
would save ten dollars per week or $500 per year. After
taxes,
since savings are not taxed, this is equal to a $600
to $800 raise, which as a supplement to a regular raise in a
lean-budget year, is worth considering.
Also,

such

variations

may
40

improve

working

conditions,

especially in crowded or congested areas, where a multiple
shift operation reduces the number of people on duty at any
time in the area.
activity. A
Organizing a staffing pattern is an ongoing
continuing process of reevaluation, and revision to respond to
changing work operations, is necessary.

41

CHAPTER FOUR
AN EXAMINATION OF SPECIFIC STAFFING ISSUES
A. INTRODUCTION
All decisions about staffing of prisons and jails can be
divided into two types: those which are technical, dealing with
the process of managing staff levels,
or translating posts and
positions into required numbers of employees, and those which are
fundamental,
dealing with the absolute question of whether to
at a given location and time,
include a given post or position,
within a staffing pattern. Within this report,
the chapter on
management of posts and positions generally dealt with technical
decisions,
while the chapter on determining and evaluating staff
requirements generally dealt with fundamental decisions.
This chapter attempts to focus on the fundamental questions
again, by examining and comparing the staffing levels of various
prisons and jails. The analysis should provide some ideas,
and
for those who must evaluate existing
some general guidelines,
levels of staff, or develop proposals for the operation of new
are not a
facilities.
The report and its recommendations
substitute for the task analysis processes discussed earlier,
because correctional institutions are usually quite different
from one another. However, application of some of the suggestions
developed later in the report should assist the staff planner or
evaluator in the following ways:
It should provide a relatively comprehensive list of
task areas to be considered,
to provide for all of
potential functions of a given institution.

the
the

It should direct a planner or evaluator to areas of
potential over- or understaffing, by enabling comparison to
the general rates of employment per hundred prisoners in
other institutions.
It should stimulate some new ideas,
and suggest alternative
approaches to the accomplishment of institutional goals.
It is important to note, however,
that this project is not
intended as a national survey of staffing patterns, or as a
survey of the characteristics of staffing patterns associated
staffing
with certain types of prisons. The institutional
patterns which are presented provide examples of approaches to
and illustrate various levels of
staffing prisons and jails,
staff deployment. However,
the staffing statistics presented in
Volume I,
and the specific and detailed descriptions in Volume
II, are intended as illustrations of specific approaches, and not
Ultimately,
as proof of the utility of these approaches.
decisions about specific staffing patterns have to be based upon
a specific analysis of the goals and tasks of each institution,
and the levels of work generated by those tasks,
rather than by
reference to general guidelines or average situations. As the
application of concepts of public administration and management
43

more generally applied and tested in the
are
field of
corrections,
perhaps more specific rules may evolve; and perhaps
this report may serve as a starting point for such an effort.
There are several interesting studies which are mentioned
several times in this chapter. One is entitled "Staffing Guide
for the Federal Prison System“, which was published in late 1980
as a general guide to the staffing patterns of institutions
within the Federal Prison System. It is an excellent example of
the application of a comparative methodology to the analysis of
staffing patterns. It establishes expected levels of staff for
various functions based upon the prevailing levels of staff at
existing institutions,
and based upon the recommendations of key
managers within the institutions as to their needs for a
reasonable level of institutional operation, but not an ideal
one.
Later in this chapter,
these guidelines will be cited
several times, to support or contrast the levels of staffing in
the state and local institutions within this project. In such
instances,
the rates per 100 prisoners have been calculated
according to the instructions in the manual for two hypothetical
institutions, one with a capacity of 375, and one with a capacity
of 950. There is an element of judgement involved due to
differences
in functional organization between federal,
state,
and local institutions, but the comparisions should be reasonably
accurate.
federal
The manual observes that generally the
institutions have fewer employees than many comparable state
institutions.
Another project is entitled "Comparision of Staffing in
Maryland Correctional Facilities Having Over 500 Population With
Those of Other States".
It was developed by the Maryland
Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning in December, 1980. It is
a survey of the total staffing levels of prisons with capacities
of greater than 500 prisoners. The specific observations will be
discussed later in the chapter when total levels of staffing are
compared.
Two other studies are also cited. The first is American
Prisons and Jails, Volume III,
(Washington D.C., U.S. Government
PrintingO f f i c e ,
1980),
authored by Joan Mullen and Bradford
Smith. This survey focuses primarily upon prison and jail
crowding,
but also provides data on overall staffing levels of
these facilities.
The Center for Public Productivity at John Jay College of
at the time of publication of
Criminal Justice in New York City,
this monograph,
is completing a report entitled National Survey
of Correctional Institution Employee Attrition Rates. Since the
author of this monograph is also an author of the attrition
project,
data from that survey has been incorporated into this
monograph at certain points. The data is based upon a survey of
200 state correctional institutions.

44

Institutions which have been included in this staffing
monograph have been selected primarily so as to reflect a
Generally, they are
geographical and functional diversity.
categorized in four ways: age, size, security, and jurisdiction.
Older facilities are those constructed prior to 1950. Most
of the newer ones have been constructed since 1975,
and several
In those instances,
are still under construction at this time.
the staffing information is based upon plans. In that tables
newer facilities are identified by an
included in this chapter,
asterisk, as follows: "*".
Large sized facilities are those with over 1000 prisoners,
and smaller ones are those with less than 1000 prisoners.
Security is divided into two categories: maximum-medium, and
minimum. Maximum-medium security facilities are those which offer
secure perimeters either by walls or fences,
and which offer
relatively secured internal conditions including cells or rooms
in most instances. The minimum security units offer no physical
perimeter security.
Jurisdiction is either state or local. The local facilities
are so functionally different from the state facilities that they
are categorized separately.
Generally, the staffing pattern statistics, and the detailed
tables presented in Volume II,
are developed based upon the
operating documents of the institutions involved. However, there
are several exceptions. The Federal institutions' patterns are
based upon central office documents. The non-correctional officer
positions are highly reliable and detailed. However, the officer
posts are developed from documentation which was accurate,
but
somewhat less precise in description.
Also, several facilities,
including the Oak Park Heights unit and the new local facilities
are based upon planned or recommended staffing patterns, not
actual operational documents.
B.

REVIEW OF STAFFING LEVELS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY

In Volume II,
actual staffing patterns of the institutions
discussed above are presented.
The positions are divided into
functional categories,
so that positions associated with common
This
tasks can be compared from institution to institution.
arrangement is also intended to provide a staff planner or
specific
evaluator with a systematic list of general and
functions which can be used as a check in studying the adequacy
of any given pattern of staff.
This section will review each
category of staff,
and provide observations and guides specific
to the types of tasks subsumed under each category.
1.

ADMINISTRATION

Those

The administration category includes two types of positions:
associated with the general leadership of the institution,
45

such as the executive office of the warden,
and positions which
provide services of a high level and general nature which cut
across the remaining categories.
Such positions would include
public information, legal services to the institutional staff, or
administrative
planning. Within all tables included in this
chapter, the "*" indicates an institution built since 1960.
TABLE IV-l: ADMINISTRATION
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

14.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
5.0
11.5
8.0
7.0
12.0
6.0

2.3
2.4
2.4
1.7
3.3
3.8
2.9
1.9
3.1
5.7

0.8
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.3
3.0
1.3
1.9
3.1
1.4

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

2.0
3.0
9.0
9.0

3.4
3.2
2.1
3.9

1.3
0.8
1.6
1.6

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
*
MCC: NEW YORK
*
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION *

7.0
13.0
15.0
8.0
7.0
9.0

5.9
4.8
5.3
4.0
4.6
3.1

4.4
2.1
3.0
1.9
3.6
2.3

160
630
495
416
192
400

SUMMARY
CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

11.3
9.6
7.1
9.4
8.2
8.7

2.1
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.1
3.5

0.9
1.8
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.9

# OF CASES
3
8
9
9
11
20

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

This table illustrates the levels of staff associated with
administration
for the institutions in the
project.
The
approximate range is one to three positions per 100 prisoners.
In the Federal Prison System Guide (FPS Guide), 2.1 positions per
hundred prisoners are recommended for a 375 bed institution, and
0.9 per hundred for a 950 bed prison.
The higher end of the
range within the state institution sample tends to occur under
the following conditions:
Institutions

which

are not part of a
46

larger

system,

and

which therefore provide for the functions of a general
office,
such as the Onandaga
departmental administrative
facility, tend to have higher needs.
Institutions which have complex functions, such as a jail or
a maximum security prison tend to have more staff.
Smaller facilities tend to have higher rates,
presumably
level
of
positions
need
for
a
minimal
the
because of
regardless of size.
next table illustrates the clerical staff
The
level
In
the
presentations,
all
the
institutions.
with
associated
clerical positions are shown with the functional areas served.
This table permits an examination of total levels.
TABLE IV-2 CLERICAL
POSITIONS

INSTITUTION
MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

37.0
20.0
17.0
27.0
8.0
20.5
11.0
12.0
16.0
1.0

6.0
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
6.8
4.0
3.3
4.1
1.0

2.2
1.3
2.8
3.0
2.0
5.4
1.8
3.3
4.2
0.2

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

4.0
5.0
30.0
19.0

6.9
5.3
7.1
8.3

2.7
1.3
5.2
3.4

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

8.0
6.0
4.0
9.4
9.0
5.0

6.8
2.2
1.4
4.7
6.0
1.7

5.0
1.0
0.8
2.3
4.7
1.3

160
630
495
416
192
400

The patterns suggest that a normal level of clerical staff
Lower levels suggest
is about five percent of the total staff.
officers
perform
correctional
under-civilianization,
where
clerical functions which can be completed more efficiently and at
lower cost by clerical employees, or simply levels of clerical
staff which appear to be too low.
2.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
47

This category includes management support functions, as
contrasted to operations support.
Types of positions include
and
business office staff such as accountants, personnel staff,
commissary employees.
Functions such as mail processing are
but are
included here if the task is primarily logistical,
included in correctional officer functions if the primary purpose
is security.
TABLE IV-3: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

29.0
34.0
16.0
21.0
5.0
17.0
15.0
8.0
14.0
1.0

4.7
7.4
4.2
4.0
3.3
5.7
5.4
2.2
3.6
1.0

1.7
2.3
2.7
2.3
1.3
4.5
2.5
2.2
3.7
0.2

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

6.0
11.0
19.0
21.0

10.3
11.6
4.5
9.2

4.0
2.9
3.3
3.7

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY 3.0
1.0
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
9.0
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
* 16.0
MCC: NEW YORK
*
3.0
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 6.0

2.5
0.4
3.2
8.1
2.0
2.1

1.9
0.2
1.8
3.8
1.6
1.5

160
630
495
416
192
400

SUMMARY
CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

5.4
4.5
4.8
3.6
5.7
4.8

2.1
2.3
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.4

# OF CASES
3
8
9
9
11
20

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

28.0
12.3
8.1
11.9
13.5
12.8

The table for business management indicates some very stable
rates and percentages, of about five percent of the total staff,
and two to three positions per hundred prisoners. An examination
of the specific tables suggests that the majority of the
and
fiscal
are associated with the accounting
positions
management function. In the FPS Guide, 4.8 positions per hundred
and 2.5 per hundred
are recommended for a 375 bed institution,
prisoners for a 950 bed institution.
48

3.

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

Support operations include logistical support functions such
as food service, building and vehicle maintenance,
and warehouse
operation.
The table suggests a range of levels of about ten
percent of staff, and about four to seven positions per hundred
prisoners. The FPS Guide suggests about 8.5 per hundred for a 375
bed institution, and 4.4 per hundred for a 950 bed institution,
although several factors about a specific institution could
modify this level.
TABLE IV-4: SUPPORT OPERATIONS
INSTITUTION

8

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

46.0
76.0
29.0
47.0
12.0
22.0
41.0
38.0
70.0
11.0

7.4
16.6
7.6
8.9
7.8
7.3
14.8
10.5
18.0
10.5

2.7
5.1
4.8
5.2
3.0
5.8
6.8
10.6
18.4
2.6

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

6.0
21.0
46.8
31.0

10.3
22.1
11.1
13.5

4.0
5.6
8.1
5.5

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
*
MCC: NEW YORK
*
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION *

11.1
13.0
34.0
17.0
10.0
14.9

9.4
4.8
12.0
8.6
6.6
5.2

6.9
2.1
6.9
4.1
5.2
3.7

160
630
495
416
192
400

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

SUMMARY

# OF CASES

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

56.3
27.9
22.8
33.4
26.9
29.8

11.0
10.4
10.8
11.0
10.4
10.7

4.3
5.1
7.0
6.8
5.1
5.9

3
8
8
9
11
20

The age of a facility does not appear to be associated with
higher or lower levels,
suggesting perhaps that while older
facilities have more maintenance problems, newer facilities have
more space per prisoner or employee to be maintained.
The FPS
49

Guide confirms this observation by providing for additional staff
over a baseline level if an institution is built before 1940, or
if it has a high level of gross square footage.
As
a
rough
guide,
an additional employee is allowed for every 50,000 square
feet over 300,000, and comparable deductions are made for less
gross footage.
Thus an older institution might lose staff
because it has less footage per prisoner than a newer one with a
comparable capacity,
but it would gain two positions because of
An examination of the actual staffing tables suggests
its age.
that the institutions with very high rates have greater levels of
functional separation of staff types, than those with lower
rates, even though the numbers of staff may be comparable.
4.

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Programs and services includes case management,
education,
work programs, recreation,
and religion.
This category varies
markedly according to the function of the institution involved.
There are generally six to eight employees per 100 prisoners,
representing ten to fifteen percent of the total staff. The only
clear distinction is that- local institutions have very few
employees in these functions.
TABLE IV-5 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

%

RATE

CAPACITY

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1.

*
*
*
*
*
*

83.0
114.0
93.0
64.0
20.0
32.5
28.0
20.0
58.0
16.0

13.4
25.0
24.5
12.1
13.0
10.9
10.1
5.5
14.9
15.3

4.9
7.6
15.5
7.1
5.0
8.6
4.7
5.6
15.2
3.8

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

6.0
27.0
* 105.1
* 51.0

10.3
28.4
24.9
22.2

4.0
7.2
18.1
9.0

150
375
580
565

9.3
0.4
4.2
13.0
8.0
4.2

6.9
0.2
2.4
6.2
6.3
3.0

160
630
495
416
192
400

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
*
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
*
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION *

50

11.0
1.0
12.0
25.7
12.0
12.0

# OF CASES

SUMMARY
87.0
41.5
22.1
42.0
37.6
39.6

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

16.8
14.3
11.6
13.2
13.7
13.5

6.5
7.5
6.9
7.9
6.4
7.1

3
8
9
9
11
20

The FPS Guide suggests a level of 6.6 per hundred for the
375 bed institution,
and 4.6 per hundred for the 950 bed
institution,
although it carefully observes that the actual
levels for a specific institution would be determined by the
specific activities of the prisoners and the mission of the
the FPS Guide includes counselors
In addition,
institution.
within the Unit Management function.
For this project,
the FPS
figures were adjusted to show the movement of the counselors to
the program category, so that the comparisons are more valid.
following tables
The
staffing levels separately.

illustrate

industry

and

program

TABLE IV-6: INDUSTRY
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

%

RATE

CAPACITY

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION

88.0
18.0
19.0
14.0
3.0
2.0

19.3
4.7
3.6
4.7
1.1
0.5

5.9
3.0
2.1
3.7
0.5
0.5

1493
600
900
380
600
381

MINIMUM SECURITY....
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

12.0
4.0
8.0

12.6
0.9
3.5

3.2
0.7
1.4

375
580
565

1.0

0.5

0.2

416

LOCAL FACILITIES....
MCC: NEW YORK

51

TABLE IV-7: EDUCATION/VOTEC
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*

33.0
25.0
38.0
8.0
4.0
5.0
8.0
28.0
11.0

5.3
5.5
10.0
1.5
2.6
1.7
2.9
7.2
10.5

1.9
1.7
6.3
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.3
7.3
2.6

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
381
420

*
*

2.0
4.0
61.1
14.0

3.4
4.2
14.5
6.1

1.3
1.1
10.5
2.5

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0

0.8
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.7

0.6
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.5

160
630
416
192
400

An
examination of
the
specific
staffing
pattern
presentations
suggests some basic issues which determine levels
of program and activity staff.
Does the institution intend that each prisoner have a
significant daily activity,
or is a substantial portion of
the population inactive?
Does
the education program offer a high
degree of
specialization,
so that teachers with very specific skills
are employed, or is the program more limited to general
exists,
education?
To the extent that specialization
especially in vocational training, high levels of staff may
be required. The table showing education/votec positions by
institution illustrates this.
Both the MCF St. Cloud and
the Vienna Correctional
Center have large,
specialized
programs, which require high levels of staff.
The
industry table illustrates that where significant
programs are operated, a range of three to six positions per
hundred prisoners exists, translating to about six to twelve
positions
working in
per hundred prisoners actually
industries.
Some institutions have lower levels because
correctional officers assigned to industries supplement the
industry workers'
tasks, while other institutions have
higher levels of industry workers and few correctional
52

officers.
5.

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

Medical and treatment positions include mental health, drug
abuse treatment professions,
psychologists, as well as the
traditional medical positions.
These data should be interpreted
with special caution, because each institution employs personnel
under contract to varying extents,
and uses services provided by
other
several institutions
agencies.
Thus,
which
show
practically no medical staff actually have very good programs
provided by external agencies.
It was not possible to identify
the level of time expended by these agencies on correctional
medicine, as opposed to other medical services.
TABLE IV-8: MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
LOCAL FACILITIES....ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

CAPACITY

RATE

*
*
*
*
*
*

16.5
32.0
15.3
20.0
19.6
34.0
6.0
19.3
13.0
4.0

2.7
7.0
4.0
3.8
12.7
11.4
2.2
5.3
3.3
3.8

1.0
2.1
2.6
2.2
4.9
8.9
1.0
5.3
3.4
1.0

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

0.0
6.0
14.5
23.0

0.0
6.3
3.4
10.0

0.0
1.6
2.5
4.1

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

1.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
1.0
3.0

0.8
0.0
0.0
8.1
0.7
1.0

0.6
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.5
0.8

160
630
495
416
192
400

SUMMARY

# OF CASES

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES
As

a

general guide,

22.8
9.8
10.8
11.7
12.6
12.2

4.5
3.9
4.6
3.6
4.9
4.3

it appears that when an
53

1.8
1.9
2.9
2.2
2.4
2.3

3
8
9
9
11
20

institution

provides medical services inhouse, or has been capable of showing
external staff on the printouts in this report,
a range of three
Special
five positions per hundred prisoners exists.
to
attention by medically competent individuals should be given to
This is illustrated
development of a medical staffing pattern.
by the following tables:
TABLE IV-9: MEDICAL
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

11.0
21.0
6.0
14.0
17.6
12.5
2.0
12.8
9.0
1.0

1.8
4.6
1.6
2.7
11.4
4.2
0.7
3.5
2.3
1.0

0.6
1.4
1.0
1.6
4.4
3.3
0.3
3.5
2.4
0.2

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

2.0
10.5
15.0

2.1
2.5
6.5

0.5
1.8
2.7

375
580
565

*
*
*

0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0

160
630
495
416
192
400

TABLE IV-l0: MENTAL HEALTH
POSITIONS

INSTITUTION
MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

54

RATE

%

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
15.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0

0.9
1.1
0.2
0.7
5.0
1.1
0.3
0.8
1.9

0.3
0.7
0.1
0.3
3.9
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5

1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*

4.0
4.0

4.2
1.7

1.1
0.7

375
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
*
MCC: NEW YORK
*
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION *

1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0

0.8
1.0
0.7
1.0

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8

There are several reasons why it is probable that a
level of staff may be required for prisoners than
comparable number of citizens in the general public:

160
416
192
400
higher
for a

Prisoners tend,
as a group,
to have more medical problems
than average citizens.
This is because many of them never
took good care of their health prior to going to prison.
Thus, the workload per medical employee will be higher for a
prisoner population than for a comparably sized group of
non-prisoners.
Working in prison can tend to be somewhat inefficient,
because of the coordination of functional activities with
security imperatives, As a result, medical staff may not be
able to see patients as efficiently as on the outside,
because of the need to escort prisoners brought to them, or
the need for the medical staff to go to the units to see the
prisoners.
Prisoners tend to fake illness,
or show a great degree of
interest and concern for relatively minor symptoms.
As a
result, a greater amount of time may be expended in
diagnosing and screening cases than would be expended with a
group of citizens.
The FPS Guide is generally consistent with the levels observed in
the state institutions,
suggesting about 3.5 medical employees
per hundred prisoners. The Guide suggests, however, that several
medically specialized institutions must be considered as separate
cases.
The Guide also assumes that some services are provided
under external contracts.
Thus,
use of this Guide, or the
guidelines from the state institutions should only be done in the
context
of
a more detailed study by medically
competent
officials.
6.

CONTROL POINTS

The following table illustrates observed staffing levels for
correctional officer control stations and supervisory posts.

55

TABLE IV-11: CONTROL POINTS
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

77.2
37.9
44.9
31.9
15.7
24.1
37.7
45.7
37.5
21.3

12.5
8.3
11.8
6.0
10.2
8.0
13.6
12.6
9.6
20.3

4.5
2.5
7.5
3.5
3.9
6.3
6.3
12.7
9.8
5.1

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

8.7
10.9
44.0
19.5

15.0
11.5
10.4
8.5

5.8
2.9
7.6
3.5

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

12.1
65.0
36.2
27.7
16.8
36.7

10.2
24.1
12.8
14.0
11.2
12.7

7.6
10.3
7.3
6.7
8.8
9.2

160
630
495
416
192
400
# OF CASES

SUMMARY
49.0
37.0
23.1
32.9
32.3
32.6

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

8.9
14.4
11.2
12.9
11.6
12.2

3.5
6.8
7.4
7.1
6.1
6.6

3
8
9
9
11
20

are reserved for
and those which follow,
This category,
The
functions generally completed by correctional officers.
control points category includes general security leadership, and
fixed posts supporting overall leadership such as a control
center,
and posts which primarily control or supervise movement
within a facility.
Generally,
it appears that about twelve to
fifteen percent of the staff is associated with such functions,
In larger
or approximately seven officers per hundred prisoners.
institutions, the rates are somewhat lower.
7.

PERIMETER SECURITY

The following table illustrates observed levels of staffing
to provide for perimeter security.

56

TABLE IV-12: PERIMETER SECURITY
INSTITUTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

46.5
43.0
17.6
36.2
10.4
8.4
37.1
26.4
53.7
24.8

7.5
9.4
4.6
6.9
6.8
2.8
13.4
7.3
13.8
23.7

2.7
2.9
2.9
4.0
2.6
2.2
6.2
7.3
14.1
5.9

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

0.0
0.0
9.9
9.2

0.0
0.0
2.3
4.0

0.0
0.0
1.7
1.6

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

3.4
0.0
6.9
12.6
5.1
5.5

2.9
0.0
2.4
6.4
3.4
1.9

2.1
0.0
1.4
3.0
2.6
1.4

160
630
495
416
192
400

41.9
14.8
12.5
20.6
15.6
17.8

7.9
7.1
4.3
8.0
4.3
6.0

3.2
2.9
3.6
4.2
2.5
3.2

# OF CASES
3
8
9
9
11
20

POSITIONS

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION
SUMMARY
CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

Perimeter security posts are towers, entrance posts for both
public,
prisoners,
and materials,
and roving patrol posts.
Generally,
unless a facility is minimum security,
three to six
positions per hundred prisoners are devoted to this function.
Older facilities appear to devote greater levels of staff to this
function,
reflecting the trend in modern institutions away from
towers, towards electronic surveillance with either single towers
or roving patrols, or designs where the shell of the facility is
the perimeter.
8.

UNIT SUPERVISION

Unit supervision includes posts associated with housing
units,
such as officers who work cellruns,
or operate doors or
gates to cells or rooms.
This is a very important category of
staffing because it constitutes one-fifth to one-third of all
institutional
staff.
In general,
between ten and twenty
57

positions per hundred prisoners are devoted to this function.
-There is great variation in levels, however,
reflecting a
diversity of operating concepts and standards for units. The FPS
Guide suggests a unit staffing level of about 3.5 employees Per
hundred prisoners, or 4.5 if case managers within the housing
The highest possible level,
units are included.
for a very
specialized small unit, would be 7 per hundred prisoners.
TABLE IV-13: UNIT SUPERVISION
POSITIONS

INSTITUTION
MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

*
*
*
*
*
*

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

12.0
8.6
* 135.6
* 35.6

99.5
60.5
108.5
186.2
49.3
113.3
63.9
161.6
97.0
15.1

%

RATE
5.9
4.1
18.1
20.7
12.3
29.8
10.6
44.9
25.5
3.6

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

20.6 8.0
9.1
2.3
32.1 23.4
15.5
6.3

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
53.9
133.5
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION'
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
85.9
* 52.6
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
* 66.2
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION * 106.0

45.6
49.5
30.3
26.5
43.9
36.7

33.7
21.2
17.3
12.6
34.5
26.5

160
630
495
416
192
400

SUMMARY
CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

21.5
27.5
32.8
31.6
26.9
29.0

10.2
14.1
24.2
20.7
15.9
18.1

# OF CASES
3
8
9
9
11
20

115.4
78.8
74.2
82.1
82.3
82.2

16.1
13.3
28.5
35.3
32.1
37.8
23.1
44.7
24.9
14.4

CAPACITY

This is the greatest area of contrast between the FPS
recommendations
and the observed conditions within the state
A comparison between the federal and state
institutions.
institutions in the sample suggests that this guideline is
In
reasonably accurate as it applies to federal operations.
221 unit officers supervise
those institutions taken together,
for a rate of 6.4 This is comparable to their
3449 prisoners,
Guide, but not comparable to the state operations. The following
is a selection of concepts which the author has observed:
58

TABLE IV-14: UNIT SUPERVISION STAFFING MODELS
MODEL
INTERMITTENT
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
PAIR
DOUBLE BACKUP
TRIPLE BACKUP

NUMBER
CONTROL

NUMBER
ROVING

TYPICAL
RATES

0
0
1
1
1
1

LT-1
1
LT-1
1
2
3

5
8
10
15
20
25

The rates are estimated based upon a unit of about 30 prisoners.
In a smaller unit of 15-20 prisoners,
the rate would double, and
in a larger unit of 50-100 prisoners, the rate would halve.
The unit staffing concepts presented above are based upon
the following operating concepts and assumptions:
The INTERMITTENT model assumes that no staff is specifically
assigned to the housing unit. An officer intermittently
observes the housing unit, generally from outside of the
unit, to ascertain whether any unusual incidents have
occurred.
This pattern is often found in jails and in
minimum security institutions.
While it does result in a
very low number of employees devoted to unit supervision, it
provides
for a very poor level of supervision.
It is
practically
impossible to provide for any control of
prisoner behavior with this system.
If the units are very
large, then counts of prisoners are also difficult.
The INTERNAL model places an officer within the housing
unit, without a backup officer capable of observing him or
her from a secure location.
This is a reasonably adequate
level of staffing if the prisoners within the unit behave
reliably, or if the prisoners are secure in cells or rooms
while the unit is staffed this way. A form of backup can be
provided with electronic communication
systems,
provided
that the communication can be initiated by the officer, and
does not rely on someone else to notice a problem such as
would
be the case with a close
circuit
television
surveillance backup system.
The problem with cctv in this
instance is that there are behaviors which are dangerous to
the officer which the cctv would not pick up,
such as a
threatened
action as
opposed
to
an
actual
one.
Realistically,
if
the population within the unit is
potentially dangerous,
the intermittent model should not be
used unless the prisoners are secured in their cells.
The EXTERNAL model calls for continuous observation from
outside of the unit, with intermittent tours of inspection
by an officer inside of the unit, while that officer is
observed by the officer assigned to the outside.
The
external model is intended to be a safer situation for the
59

supervision of a more dangerous population while they are
outside of their cells in dayspace areas.
However,
this
author is of the opinion that it is generally preferable to
use a system which places one or more officers inside of the
The assignment of officers to routinely
unit at all times.
external unit posts creates an "us versus them" mentality
between officers and prisoners, and does not enable a rapid
response to any internal problems on the unit.
It also
tends to limit the role of the officer to inspection
functions.
The PAIRED model assumes one officer outside in a secure
and another inside the unit with the prisoners.
location,
This model provides for an officer within the unit to not
but also to interact with and lead the
only supervise,
prisoners.
Besides enabling a broader range of supervisory
behaviors by the officer,
the assignment of officers to
posts within units may provides an atmosphere which would
also encourage non-correctional officer staff to deal with
prisoners within the units, because officer supervision is
To the extent that case
readily available within the unit.
management meetings,
medical screenings and other staff
less officer time is
contacts can occur on the units,
expended escorting prisoners to and from off-unit meetings.
The DOUBLE-BACKUP model assumes two officers within the unit
and one outside.
Thus,
each officer within the unit is
backed up by two other officers, one inside and one outside.
This allows for a broader and stronger response to any
problems on the unit, but also results in a probable staff
rate which is higher than the typical rates for institutions
in this study.
The feasibility of this model would depend
upon the size of the unit to be supervised.
If housing
units are relatively large, with over 75 prisoners per unit,
then
model would be economically
the double back-up
It might also be desirable from
practical for many prisons.
a supervision standpoint for more difficult populations.
The TRIPLE BACKUP model is used in some more complex
facilities. The basic goal of this model is to visually
chain officers from the external control station to the end
of the unit, with the number of officers within the unit
determined by the number of officer locations needed to
or officers not visible to other
eliminate blind areas,
officers.
As a result,
the average officer can see two
other officers,
and is also backed up by the control
station.
Thus, the term triple backup evolves.
9.

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

This category includes the supervision of program and work
areas, as well as the supervision of general areas such as a
this appears to require a range of
central yard.
In general,
about five to ten officers per hundred prisoners.

60

TABLE IV-15: INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

%

RATE

CAPACITY

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
200.3
36.0
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
45.2
100.2
IOWA s. P. FORT MADISON
*
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
13.9
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS * 22.0
* 20.8
U.S.P. MARION
* 30.6
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
f 25.0
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
*
4.3
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.C.

32.3 11.8
7.9
2.4
11.9 7.5
19.0 11.1
9.0
3.5
7.3
5.8
7.5
3.5
8.5
8.5
6.4
6.6
4.1
1.0

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

*
*

15.7
6.6
36.9
22.3

27.0
7.0
8.7
9.7

10.5
1.8
6.4
4.0

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
*
MCC: NEW YORK
*
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION *

14.7
42.2
80.9
8.0
26.2
94.1

12.5 9.2
15.6
6.7
28.5 16.3
4.0
1.9
17.4 13.6
32.6 23.5

160
630
495
416
192
400

SUMMARY

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

# OF CASES

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

112.2
32.6
27.7
25.3
56.2
42.3

19.7
11.3
14.2
9.7
17.2
13.9

8.4
5.9
9.2
6.1
9.1
7.8

There are several factors which influence the
officers required:

numbers

3
8
9
9
11
20
of

Some facilities,
such as the MCC in New York,
confine most
the
As a result,
prisoner activity to the housing unit.
levels of staffing for activity supervision are low,
since
programs and recreation are supervised by unit staff.
Minimum security units often use the non-officer staff for
whatever supervision may be required.
in a small
Thus,
factory,
the forman may function both as a task leader as
well as a supervisor from a security perspective.
10.

EXTERNAL AND OTHER
This

category covers external functions such as movement to
61

The actual positions for each
other institutions or to court.
institution vary significantly so that no meaningful observations
can be made about this category.
11.

TOTAL POSITIONS

The total numbers of positions vary from about 25 per
which means that there are more staff, for
hundred to over 100,
all shifts taken together,
than prisoners.
TABLE IV-16: TOTAL POSITIONS
INSTITUTION

POSITIONS

%

RATE

CAPACITY

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

*
*
*
*
*
*

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

58.2
95.1
* 422.9
* 229.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

38.8
25.4
72.9
40.6

150
375
580
565

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

118.1
269.9
283.8
* 198.2
* 150.7
* 288.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

73.8
42.8
57.3
47.7
78.5
72.1

160
630
495
416
192
400

619.2
456.7
380.2
527.2
153.8
299.3
276.8
361.5
388.8
104.7

100.0 36.4
100.0 30.6
100.0 63.4
100.0 58.6
100.0 38.4
100.0 78.8
100.0 46.1
100.0 100.4
100.0 102.0
100.0 24.9

SUMMARY

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

# OF CASES

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

534.4
270.8
212.7
276.4
290.5
284.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

41.9
49.5
67.6
61.2
52.7
56.5

Several
All facilities together had a rate of 56.
were associated with levels of staff lower than 56:

3
8
9
9
11
20
factors

Newer facilities used slightly fewer positions than older
ones,
although in the three instances where old and new
institutions were presented from the same systems, the newer
62

facilities require higher levels of staff than the older
There are some differences as to function of
facilities.
which account for increased staff
facilities
the newer
levels in certain functional categories, but not to such an
extent as to explain the overall differences.
Larger facilities,
as one might expect, have lower rates,
although the rates seem to be lower for all functions.
rather than being more efficient with respect to
Thus,
it appears that the larger facilities
"overhead functions",
and services to their
provide less supervision, programs,
they are not
Thus,
than the smaller ones.
populations
inherently more efficient than smaller ones. Presumably the
smaller ones could operate with the lower levels of staff if
they also provided the lower levels of supervision and
services.
The FPS Guide does not provide a general observation as to
overall staffing levels, because the numbers of correctional
officers are determined,
in part, by facility characteristics.
The Maryland survey of prisons with capacities of greater than
500 provided data to support several specific observations:
hundred
The average institution had 32 employees per
prisoners, which compares to the finding in this project of
33 for the institutions with over 800 prisoners.
There were 19.8 correctional officers per hundred prisoners,
as compared to the finding in this project of 26.5 for the
larger institutions, and 36.4 overall.
In the
Maryland project, the lowest statewide staffing
level was found in Texas, with 11 employees per hundred
prisoners, and the highest in Massachusetts, with 59.
American Prisons and Jails (Mullen & Smith,
reports
1980)
the following median staffing rates according to region and
jurisdiction (Mullen & Smith, p.99 & 102):
TABLE IV-17 TOTAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAFFING BY
REGION AND JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
LOCAL (CO'S ONLY)
STATE (CO'S ONLY)

N. EAST N. CENTRAL
33
29

22
24

SOUTH

WEST

TOTAL

18
20

15
20

20
24

The following is a summary of staffing rates for 162
institutions responding to the National Survey of Correctional
Institution Employee Attrition Rates.

63

TABLE IV-18: A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF CATEGORICAL STAFFING RATES
STAFF
TYPE

INSTITUTION TYPE
PRERELEASE
LOWER SECURITY
ALL
SMALL---- LARGE

ADMINISTRATION
SUPPORT
LINE OFFICERS
SUPERV. OFFICERS
PROGRAM
OTHER

2
7
12
3
2
1

5
6
21
5
7
1

3
10
26
3
7
1

HIGHER SECURITY
SMALL-----LARGE
4
9
29
6
7
2

TOTAL
CASES

TOTAL

2
6
20
2
4
2

3
7
21
4
5
2

37
(47)

40
(162)

The total rate for correctional officers is consistent with that
presented in American Prisons and Jails,
as their finding of 24
is quite close to the finding in the attrition survey project of
for a
21 for line officers and four for supervisory officers,
comparable total of 25.
It is also very close to the finding of
26.5 for the institutions presented specifically in this report.
The next table illustrates the deployment of correctional
officers by type of post or function, for the institutions in the
previous table:
TABLE Vl-19: OFFICER DEPLOYMENT BY TYPE OF POST
POST
TYPE

INSTITUTION TYPE
PRERELEASE
LOWER SECURITY
ALL
SMALL---- LARGE

COMBINED CO RATE
PERIMETER
UNITS
PROGRAM SUPERVISION
CONTROL POINTS
EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS
OTHER

HIGHER SECURITY
SMALL-----LARGE

TOTAL
ALL

15

26

29

34

22

24

2.9
6.0
1.2
1.8
0.4
2.7

0.5
11.2
2.6
5.2
2.1
4.4

4.0
6.7
10.3
3.5
0.5
4.0

6.5
15.6
6.1
1.7
1.7
2.4

3.7
8.6
4.6
1.8
0.7
2.7

3.8
9.1
5.3
2.1
0.7
3.0

There are several observations which can be made based upon
the tables which presented data on combined staff rates.
Facility size does not appear to have a clear and consistent
relationship
intensity.
with
staffing
For
example,
prerelease centers appeared to be authorized fewer staff
than more conventional institutions, but economy of largerscale operation appeared to operate only in the larger high
security category of institution (table 14).
Institutional size appeared to achieve lower staff intensity
in both security categories only for administrative staff
and correctional supervisors (table 14).
64

c.

APPENDIX TABLES

The final set of tables illustrates the staffing patterns by
shift. This is a more realistic view of the staffing patterns as
and also eliminates differences in
they would actually function,
levels of total staffing which are due to differences in coverage
factors. Additional tables include a summary of the "External
and groupings of positions in broad
and Other" positions,
categories.
This chapter has presented some specific observations about
institutional
of
areas
functional
levels of
staffing
organizations. Most readers will find the tables which follow to
be sufficiently detailed to meet their needs. However, if one is
completing a specific study of a staffing pattern, it is
as it provides a position
suggested that Volume II be obtained,
by position summary for each institution.

65

TABLE IV-20
ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT
DAY
# R

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
71 4
106 7
U.S.P. ATLANTA
54 9
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
64 7
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
22 6
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS 46 12
U.S.P. MARION
52 9
35 10
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
73 19
17 4
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

TOTL
# R

5
5
10
4
0
5
5
6
7
1

0
0
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
0

3
1
6
1
0
1
1
1
2
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

12 8
28 8
60 10
51 9

1
2
4
3

1
1
1
1

0
1
3
1

0
0
1
0

14 9
35 9
75 13
61 11

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 17 11
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 22 3
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
37 8
37 9
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
17 9
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 24 6

1
2
6
1
1
2

1
0
1
0
0
1

1
0
2
0
1
0

1
0
0
0
0
0

21
27
58
41
20
30

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

66

89
121
54
77
22
51
64
53
96
18

5
8
9
9
6
13
11
15
25
4

13
4
12
10
10
7

TABLE IV-21
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT
NITE
# R

DAY
# R

TOTL
# R

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
94 6
U.S.P. ATLANTA
136 9
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
96 16
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
79 9
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
30 8
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS 41 11
U.S.P. MARION
34 6
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
27 7
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
62 16
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
20 5

1
2
18
1
3
15
0
4
3
0

0
0
3
0
1
4
0
1
1
0

1
2
2
0
0
3
0
2
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0

100
146
108
84
40
67
34
39
71
20

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

0
1
22
2

0
0
4
0

0
1
1
2

0
0
0
0

6 4
33 9
120 21
74 13

0
0
1
2
0
2

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

12 8
1 0
12 2
42 10
13 7
15 4

6 4
30 8
93 16
68 12

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 12
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 1
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
10
MCC: NEW YORK
35
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
13
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 9

67

8
0
2
8
7
2

6
10
18
9
10
18
6
11
19
5

TABLE IV-22
UNIT OFFICERS

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT
NITE
# R

DAY
# R

TOTL
# R

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

21 1
13 1
46 8
45 5
13 3
32 8
16 3
37 10
25 7
6 1

18 1
12 1
38 6
38 4
12 3
28 7
12 2
37 10
20 5
3 1

16
12
16
27
6
12
12
18
11
1

1
1
3
3
2
3
2
5
3
0

99
61
109
186
49
113
64
162
97
15

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

3
3
28
13

2
1
5
2

3
2
28
6

2
1
5
1

3
1
26
5

2
0
4
1

12 8
9 2
136 23
36 6

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

14 9
28 4
17 3
15 4
23 12
26 7

11
33
17
10
18
21

7
5
3
2
9
5

7
17
13
8
7
11

4
3
3
2
4
3

54
134
86
53
66
106

68

6
4
18
21
12
30
11
45
25
4

34
21
17
13
34
26

TABLE IV-23
OTHER OFFICERS

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT
DAY
# R

NITE
# R

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

121 7
43 3
38 6
64 7
18 5
16 4
39 7
42 12
38 10
18 4

58
24
29
38
14
22
24
13
23
8

3
2
5
4
4
6
4
4
6
2

13
16
7
12
9
4
12
12
13
6

1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
1

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

14
8
43
30

9
2
7
5

3
2
19
9

2
1
3
2

1
2
8
2

1
1
1
0

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

15
33
41
23
18
37

9
5
8
6
9
9

6
24
34
11
11
33

4
4
7
3
6
8

3
10
9
6
4
10

2
2
2
2
2
3

69

TOTL
# R
331
129
109
180
43
69
115
108
125
52

19
9
18
20
11
18
19
30
33
12

26 17
19 5
93 16
59 10
31
108
128
63
51
138

20
17
26
15
27
34

TABLE VI-24
TOTAL STAFF

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT
NITE
# R

DAY
# R

TOTL
# R

MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.

306
299
234
252
83
135
141
141
197
61

18
20
39
28
21
36
23
39
52
14

82
44
94
81
29
70
41
61
53
12

5
3
16
9
7
18
7
17
14
3

34
32
31
40
15
21
25
33
28
7

2
2
5
4
4
5
4
9
7
2

619
457
380
527
154
299
277
362
389
105

36
31
63
59
38
79
46
**
**
25

MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

35
69
224
162

23
18
39
29

7 5
7 2
73 13
20 4

4
5
38
10

3
1
7
2

58
95
423
229

39
25
73
41

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL 58
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION 84
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
105
MCC: NEW YORK
110
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
71
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION 96

36
13
21
27
37
24

18
59
58
24
30
58

11
27
24
16
12
22

7
4
5
4
6
6

118 74
270 43
284 57
198 48
151 78
289 72

70

11
9
12
6
16
15

TABLE IV-20: EXTERNAL AND OTHER STAFF
POSITIONS

INSTITUTION
MAXIMUM AND MEDIUM SECURITY....
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILITY
U.S.P. ATLANTA
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
U.S.P. MARION
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
MINIMUM SECURITY....
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
F.C.I. FORT WORTH

LOCAL FACILITIES....
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACIL
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTION
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
MCC: NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION

%

RATE

CAPACITY

*
*
*
*
*
*

7.2
12.3
1.7
11.7
3.0
14.6
19.4
5.0
8.7
1.3

1.2
2.7
0.4
2.2
2.0
4.9
7.0
1.4
2.2
1.2

0.4
0.8
0.3
1.3
0.8
3.8
3.2
1.4
2.3
0.3

1700
1493
600
900
400
380
600
360
381
420

*
*

1.7
1.0
2.0
7.8

3.0
1.1
0.5
3.4

1.2
0.3
0.3
1.4

150
375
580
565

*
*
*

1.0
1.2
3.9
14.6
3.4
1.3

0.8
0.5
1.4
7.4
2.2
0.5

0.6
0.2
0.8
3.5
1.8
0.3

160
630
495
416
192
.lOO
# OF CASES

SUMMARY
10.4
6.5
4.4
7.1
5.4
6.1

CAPACITY OVER 800
400-800 CAPACITY
CAPACITY UNDER 400
OLDER FACILITIES
NEWER FACILITIES
ALL FACILITIES

71

2.0
2.7
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.3

0.8
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.2

3
8
9
9
11
20

CHAPTER FIVE
IMPLEMENTATION
A. INTRODUCTION
In this final chapter of the first volume, we return to a
major original goal of this project: assisting managers in the
planning and evaluation of staffing levels. The review of
approaches provided in previous chapters illustrates a variety of
in prisons and
methods to conduct such evaluations. However,
several of these approaches will be more
jails as they are,
immediately useful than the others. These are TASK ANALYSIS and
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. There are several reasons for this:
Jobs are so variable, and consist of so many different tasks
economically
would be
and Time Study
Motion
that
impractical. By the time a "best method" was precisely
defined for a task, the task would be slightly changed, and
the analysis would be invalidated.
non-labor
when
auditing is more useful
Productivity
f o
are
to
be
substituted
machines,
resources,
such as
institutions.
labor. This is not highly feasible in real
Even such originally promising concepts as closed circuit
television surveillance have generally only succeeded in
displacing staff from prisoner contact areas to control
resulting in a diminished capacity to respond to
stations,
incidents which are detected. The methodology presented
the
later in
this chapter will permit analysis of
substitution of equipment for labor, but not as a central
feature of the method.
are
highly
Analysis
and
Process
Outcome
Analysis
individualized methods, depending upon the situation to be
a general
evaluated or the standard to be applied. Thus,
method for such approaches is difficult to specify.
Therefore,
this chapter will focus primarily upon task
analysis and comparative analysis, with some application of
productivity auditing. These two methods are highly applicable to
they apply easily
prisons and jails for several reasons. First,
which constitute the majority of the
to personnel resources,
resources expended in prisons and jails. Second, they are highly
different methods, so that the results of one approach can be
used as a check on the other.
After carefully reading this chapter, you should be able to
conduct a simple, yet complete analysis of the staffing level of
a program or function within an institution.

73

r

B. PLANNING AND EVALUATING STAFF LEVELS:
A MULTIPLE METHODS APPROACH
The basic purpose of this report is to assist officials who
must either develop staffing patterns for new institutions, or
evaluate current staffing patterns for existing institutions.
This section suggests and describes an approach to such projects.
Any problem solving method should occur at a scale which
corresponds to the problem. Thus,
the development of a complete
staffing pattern for a new institution deserves a decisionmaking
process which allows for participation by several levels of
such as budgetary
management, as well as outside parties,
agencies,
which will ultimately influence final decisions about
funding and approval. However, more limited problems,
such as
whether to hire another employee for a certain unit, might not
require such a complex and lengthy process. One or two officials
with awareness of the problems,
and authority to act could meet,
decide, and implement a course of action.
The steps described here could, depending upon the size and
complexity of the problem, be completed as a mental process by
one person, or could be completed as a complex organizational
planning method involving many officials inside and outside of an
organization over a period of months. For many situations, the
and forms presented below are
specific example, procedures,
appropriate and sufficient.
The following are six steps
planning and evaluating a staffing
followed only as elements of a
improve the accuracy of subsequent

which should be followed in
pattern. Even if the steps are
mental process,
they should
decisions.

The first step is to DEFINE ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND
This might be as thorough and complex as an
PRIORITIES.
institutional mission statement or master plan, or as simple as a
list of functions of a records unit. In developing a list of such
goals, however, the following guidelines are suggested:
Goals should stated behaviorally rather than conceptually.
An example of a behavioral goal statement would be "to
assure that all prisoners can read at a sixth grade level",
as compared to "to provide adequate general educational
services".
A large organization would generate many goal statements,
while a small department or office within an organization
might require only five to ten.
Priorities can be identified either as rankings of the
goals,
or as levels within each goal. An example of a level
within a goal would be "as a minimum objective, to assure
that prisoners read at the sixth grade level,
and as a
to read at the tenth grade level." If
desirable objective,
priority levels are the same for each goal,
then it is
74

possible to identify the resource levels to meet all goals
and then to identify the levels
at a minimal level,
necessary to meet higher priorities.
The second step is to IDENTIFY TASKS AND STANDARDS for each
goal.
Meeting a goal requires that specific tasks be completed,
such as escorting a prisoner from one place to another, or filing
a record. The level of detail in defining tasks would be
determined by the specific method used for later analysis. A
variety of methods are suggested and discussed in Chapter Two of
this report. The purpose of identifying standards is to determine
what level of task completion completes the goal.
It is important to emphasize here the importance of facility
design and technology in the determination of the specific tasks
to be accomplished. An analysis of this can be especially
important when a facility is being designed.
The third step is to MEASURE THE TASKS, AND THE RESOURCES
NEEDED TO MEET THEM. A very specific example would be the
and one
following:
There are 1000 records to be filed per day,
person can file an average of 200 records per day. A more general
example would be that there will be an average of 100 students
and one teacher
for the education program on an average day,
should have a class size of between twenty and thirty.
The fourth step is the DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES
NEEDED,
AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. Based upon an assessment, for
each goal, of the numbers of tasks to be completed and the
employees needed to accomplish given numbers of tasks,
the
specific number of employees needed for each goal area can be
defined. The material in the final chapters of this report should
be a source of comparative information about many areas of
institutional operation.
The fifth step is to ORGANIZE THE STAFF. Such organization
would include both hierarchical structures such as a chain of
command, as well as shift patterns. Chapter Three discusses
and provides illustrations of
to organize staff,
methods
organizational structures and shift patterns.
The final step is to DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A MONITORING AND
EVALUATION SYSTEM. It is unlikely that an initial staffing
As proposals are
recommendation will be entirely correct.
implemented, processes to continue to measure tasks completed, as
provide
well as the ultimate result of the tasks completed,
information allow subsequent readjustment of staffing levels.
The expression "multiple methods approach" has been selected
as a label for this method because it should be more than a
There is a sequence of six steps to the
sequence of steps.
approach -- from defining goals and priorities to implementing an
evaluation strategy -- but the completion of each step should
include use of more than one method of analysis.
The use of
several methods is supported by experience in social science
75

in Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive
research, Webb et al.,
Research In The Social Sciences (Chicago,
Rand McNally,
1966)
have observed:
Once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more
independent measurement processes, the uncertainty of its
interpretation is greatly reduced. The most persuasive
measurement
evidence comes through a triangulation of
processes. If a proposition can survive the onslaught of a
series of imperfect measures, with all their irrelevant
error, confidence should be placed in it. (p. 3)
To the extent that the field of management has developed methods
of defining correct numbers of employees to conduct tasks, or
appropriate organizational arrangements for their deployment and
supervision,
the level of accuracy is often directly associated
with the level of cost and time required to get answers. As a
result,
staffing decisions have to be made on the basis of
incomplete information. The use of several methods to estimate
the solution to a problem can sometimes be the next best
approach.
A selection of specific staff analysis methods are described
in Chapter Two. An example of a multiple methods approach would
involve using two methods at each step in the planning process
described above. For example,
a task analysis approach might be
used first, and then a comparative approach might be used second.
The second approach would serve as a check on the first. Using
task analysis and comparative approaches together is especially
effective because they are very different methods, and rely on
different sources of information as a basis for conclusions.
The multiple methods should be used at each phase in the
process.
In defining goals and priorities,
task analysis would
call for specific statements based upon the intended purposes of
the institution.
Comparative analysis would call for goal
statements of other institutions which seem to be comparable. In
identifying tasks and standards, task analysis would call for the
description of the specific tasks involved in the process of
achieving
the goals.
Comparative analysis would call for
information about the tasks completed by comparable institutions
in meeting their goals. The end result is that conclusions are
based both upon a specific analysis of the functions of the
institution under study,
but also upon a comparison to other
institutions.
C. EXAMPLE
The following is an example of a multiple methods approach
to staff analysis, examining the number of counselors needed for
a hypothetical institution. This example was selected because it
provides a relatively simple and clear illustration of the
method. Forms are used which are included as blanks at the end of
the chapter. This permits managers to copy the forms and use them
in actual situations.
76

This will be a hypothetical situation, because no single
actual situation clearly illustrates most of the points which
need explanation. Our example is an institution with an average
population of 400,
and a staff of 200, of whom 8 are counselors.
The counseling staff appears to be overworked, and is doing poor
quality work, and not completing many tasks. In preparation for a
an analysis is to be made to determine the added
budget request,
number of counselors, if any, which might be needed. The
of less than
institution has a relatively short length of stay,
one year. An average of forty prisoners are received each month,
and an equal number are discharged or transferred, with ten to
fifteen prisoners seeing the Parole Board each month. The mission
of the institution includes a responsibility to provide both
classification and counseling services. The Warden would like to
improve the counseling services which are minimal at this point.
As stated in the previous section,
the first step is to
DEFINE ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES. In this example,
there are four overall goals to the counseling program: 1)
3) assisting in
2) answering questions,
maintaining records,
prisoner classification,
and 4) counseling prisoners.
The
for achievement of these goals vary,
priorities
and
two
alternative priority levels will be illustrated later.
The second step is to IDENTIFY TASKS
following are the tasks for each goal:

AND

STANDARDS.

The

intake
MAINTAIN RECORDS,
counselors must develop
To
summaries for each incoming prisoner,
and develop a parole
summary for each one considered for parole.
To ANSWER QUESTIONS,
counselors must respond to mail
and they must respond to
inquiries about prisoners,
questions by each prisoner.
To ASSIST IN PRISONER CLASSIFICATION,
participate in classification interviews.

counselors

must

counselors must conduct monthly
To COUNSEL PRISONERS,
interview sessions with each prisoner, and they must conduct
weekly counseling sessions with prisoners who need and
request such sessions.
It should be noted that these are simplified sets of goals and
tasks.
In a real prison or jail, more goals and tasks might be
identified, but the essential process would be the same.
The third step is to MEASURE THE TASKS. On the following
and "2 TASK
forms labeled "1 TIME ALLOWANCE ANALYSIS",
pages,
are presented. These forms are used to
FREQUENCY ANALYSIS",
measure the time required to complete the tasks which constitute
a job,
and to measure the number of times these tasks must be
completed during an hour, day or week.

77

1

TIME ALLOWANCE ANALYSIS
TASK

CURRENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

average
time

METHODS

Classification
interviews

6.0

4.5

18.5

10.3

3.0

24.0

11.0

Intake summaries

40.0

70.0

130.0

85.0

125.0

75.0

88.0

Monthly

30.0

20.0

40.0

50.0

20.0

10.0

28.0

110.0

18.0

4.0

12.0

20.0

25.0

31.0

40.0

120.0

90.0

40.0

30.0

75.0

66.0

6.0

20.0

4.0

22.0

12.0

18.0

14.0

50.0

72.0

40.0

50.0

55.0

45.0

52.0

25.0

80.0

35.0

100.0

35.0

85.0

60.0

3.0

10.0

9.0

2.0

7.0

5.0

6.0

45.0

37.0

19.0

15.0

41.0

23.0

30.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

9.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

interviews

Respond to mail
Parole summaries
Respond to inquiries
Counseling
ALTERNATE

sessions
METHODS

Intake summaries with
computer
Respond to mail with
word processor
Develop parole summaries
with word processor
Respond to inquiries
with computer

78

TASK

time
period

Classification
interviews

1 day

2

10

6

Intake summaries

1 day

1

0

1

Monthly

1 day

2

2

3

Respond to mail

1 day

10

7

8

Parole summaries

1 day

C

0

0.3

Inquiries

1 day

10

5

7

Counseling

1 day

2

1

1

interviews

#

#

79

Average
number

The first form lists each task,
and shows the time, in
minutes, to complete each task, in six separate measurements. The
column on the far right shows the average amount of time required
in minutes. The form could be completed
to complete each task,
measuring time in larger increments, such as five to ten minutes,
or hours, although minutes are more accurate. On the example
form, classification interviews took an average of eleven minutes
and intake summaries took an average of eighty-eight
each,
minutes to complete.
A variation in the use of this form would be to conduct time
measurements of several alternative methods of completing a
task,
so that the most efficient method could be used later
in the process. This would be especially important if the
substitution of equipment for labor is under consideration.
In the example form, word processors and a computer terminal
to the prisoner record system-have been introduced and
evaluated, and task completion times for intake summaries
were reduced from 88 minutes to 30 minutes,
responding to
mail from 14 minutes to 6 minutes, etc. The use of these
measurements will be illustrated later.
Another variation would be to compare the time to complete a
task by trained and experienced employees,
contrasted with
inexperienced employees. This would enable the establishment
of time standards which could be used in the promotion or
extraordinary reward of employees, and might also permit the
determination of the precise value of
training
and
experience in job performance.
An important consideration
in timing work is to define
adequate performance of a task. Usually,
the time required
to redo a task to correct error is included in the original
time to do it in the first instance. Thus, a job which took
six minutes to do originally,
and four more minutes to
would
be
considered
to
have taken ten minutes to
correct,
complete. An alternative approach is to total the amount of
time taken to do the tasks, but divide it (to determine the
average time per task) by the number of tasks completed
correctly. This method is appropriate if defective task
completions are discarded,
rather than corrected. In using
this method,
however, more than six samples of work
completion should be completed. A rule of thumb would be to
sample completions until five rejections have occurred. This
assures that rejections are properly represented in the
estimates. Another approach is to sample the time to
complete the tasks correctly.
Then count the number of
correct completions and errors in fifty attempts. Then
multiply the correct completion time by the number of
correct completions and divide by fifty. This method will
work
unless
errors take much
longer
than
correct
completions.
A final suggestion is to measure task completion times when
the employee is working at a normal rate,
not at a hurried
80

rate. The rate should be sufficiently relaxed that the
employee could realistically keep it up for a full working
day. A major source of error in these types of studies is to
develop overoptimistic estimates of work rates.
The second form is a tally of the number of times each task
was completed over three separate one-day measures. The form
could be filled out over a period of a week or month, or could be
filled out retroactively for a month or year in the past. Again,
the column on the extreme right provides the average number of
times each task was completed over the time period studied.
Both of these forms can be completed by the employee whose
job is being studied. Sometimes this increases the acceptance of
It also adds another task to the list
the results of the study.
-- filling out these forms -- however,
this should not take too
and tends to slightly bias the results in favor of the
long,
employee.
This is useful to point out should employees complain
about completion of the forms.
In the example,
classification interviews averaged six per
more
It should be noted that sometimes,
day per counselor.
objective information about the frequency of tasks can be
the number of parole
obtained from other sources. For example,
summaries to be completed could be determined by the number of
prisoners to be considered for parole. This might be a more
reliable method of estimation of the frequency of this task,
for example,
the management is aware of possible
especially if,
factors in the future which would increase or decrease that
Thus, if the frequency of a task can be objectively
estimate.
then the completion of this form
ascertained by another method,
would be unnecessary.
The fourth step is to DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES
two forms are provided
NEEDED. On the following two pages,
labeled "3 JOB DEFINITION", and "4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY".
These forms are used to determine the appropriate numbers of
employees to complete the specified tasks.
Form 3 uses measures in either weeks or hours. Figures as to
task duration from form 1 must be translated into hours from
If form 2 was
minutes. Thus thirty minutes becomes .5 hours.
the task frequency data must
completed over anything but weeks,
if a task is completed
be translated into weekly counts. Thus,
If it
once per day,
it must be shown as five times per week.
it must be translated to 10 times
occurs forty times per month,
per week. The reason for not calculating these figures in hours
and weeks originally is that the task duration measures are more
accurate if they are originally measured in minutes, and the task
frequency measures are more representative of the total scope of
a job if they are based on a relatively long time period.

81

3

JOB DEFINITION

TASK

frequency rate

Classification

interviews

Intake summaries
Monthly

interviews

Respond to mail
Parole summaries
Inquiries
Counseling

optimal

normal

sessions

/workhoursperweek

total positions required

total

0.2

32

160

0.2

32

40

1.5

60

40

1.0

40

120

0.5

60

120

0.5

60

320

0.5

160

320

0.1

32

13

1.1

14

13

0.5

7

280

0.2

56

280

0.1

28

40

0.9

36

80

0.9

72

+ on-job allowances

total hours per week

frequency rate

160

total direct time

+ relief factor

total

I

. 24

418

271

38

25

109

565

.24

71

367

40

9

4

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY

institution

function

population number

percent

rate

MILLHAVEN

1.5%

1.6

MANNING

3.8%

0.9

5.8%

2.3

4.0%

2.9

4.8%

1.9

4.0%

1.9

4.0%

2.0

proposal

7.0%

3.5

optimal proposal

4.5%

2.3

final recommendation

4.5%

2.3

JOE HARP

400/154

9

VIENNA

comparison
institutions
current actual
positions

400/200

8

normal

I

COMMENTS:
Requires purchase and operation of a word processor and computer
record system terminal. Clerical time and effort may also
increase.

The frequency figures can be based upon the expected
performance of one employee, or of a group of employees. In this
the frequency figures are based upon the numbers of
instance,
tasks for all of the counselors in a given week. The result is,
therefore, an estimate of the total number of counselors needed.
The data on the form can best be explained by examination on
the information on form 3 will be
one item in detail. First,
completed for a "normal" situation,
under that category. The
"optimal"
category would be used for comparison purposes, to
estimate the staff requirements under revised assumptions of the
methods, time requirements, and frequency of some or all of the
tasks. We will begin by completing the "normal" category on form
3.
It is estimated that forty intake summaries must
be
completed each week. This is consistent with the data on form 2,
which showed one counselor completing an average of one summary
per day. On that basis, eight counselors would complete forty
summaries per week. Summaries each take an average of 88 minutes,
the total time required to
or 1.5 hours to complete. Therefore,
complete 40 summaries is 60 hours.
Each task is calculated in the same manner, and the total
time requirements are totaled at the line which is labeled "total
In this example 418 hours of time are required to
direct time".
complete these tasks.
The next line is labeled "on-job allowances". The purpose of
this line is to allow for non-task time which is permitted during
a normal working day. In this case, during an eight-hour day, two
15 minute breaks are allowed, plus two five minute breaks. Thus,
an eight hour day yields seven hours and twenty minutes of work,
and forty minutes of break-time. Division of the break-time by
the work-time yields a ratio which is used to calculate the extra
time associated with a specific amount of work-time.
In this
case,
the ratio is .091, which is the result of dividing 40
minutes of break per day, by 440 minutes of work (7 hours and
twenty minutes). Thus,
for 418 hours of work, an extra 38 hours
of breaks will be required to fulfill obligations to the
employees.
The next line is labeled "relief factor". The calculation of
a relief factor is described in detail in Chapter Three.
Basically,
it represents the ratio of days on the job each year,
there are 261 working days
In this case,
to total working days.
per year, based upon 365 days in a year, and 104 regular days off
because the counselors work a five day week. There are working
days each year, however, where the counselors will not be doing
10 holidays, 8
their normal job duties: 15 days of annual leave,
days of sick leave,
10 days of training,
and 7 days of military
and other leave. This leaves 211 actual days of work, out of the
261 days yielded by a 40 hour, five day week. The coverage factor
the total days divided by the actual days, or 261 divided by
or 1.24. Thus,
100 normal working days would require 124
84

days of employment.
In our example, 418 hours of actual work, plus 38 hours of
training,
would require 109 additional hours of leave,
breaks,
or 456, by
etc. This is calculated by multiplying 418 plus 38,
0.24, which is 109.
Thus, the total number of hours required per week to
complete these tasks would be 565, which includes direct effort,
and days on leave or training. This, divided
on-job allowances,
by the 40 hour work week yields the total required number of
employees, which is 14.
Based upon this information, there are
several observations which can be made. First, since there is 14
counselors worth of work to be done, and only eight to do it, the
perception that these people are overworked and are probably not
completing much of their work, and are probably not doing quality
the analysis
work, this perception would be accurate. Further,
reveals that 52% of their work-time is expended answering mail
and
and
and only 23% is expended counseling
inquiries,
interviewing prisoners.
On form 3,
the "optimal" section of the form permits the
restructuring of a job based upon different assumptions about the
methods of work,
time requirements,
and frequency of tasks. In
the example, changes have been made which attempt to resolve some
the time
For example,
of the problems illustrated above.
requirements
for some of the tasks have been changed based upon
time studies,
using word processing equipment and a
on form 1,
computer terminal. The computer terminal, which is part of a
record system, permits more rapid answers to inquiries regarding
and future status of prisoners. The word
the present, past,
basic
processing equipment searches the computer file for
so that counselors only prepare those
information on a prisoner,
parts of parole summaries and other reports which are very recent
such
In the real world,
or unique to the immediate problem.
and may also
systems may or may not achieve such efficiencies,
require additional staff in other areas of an organization.
let us assume the
However,
for the purposes of this example,
validity of these figures.
the total time
On the basis of the more efficient methods,
required for some tasks has been greatly reduced. In addition,
the number of counseling sessions has been doubled. Following the
a total of 271
same methodology as under the "normal" analysis,
hours of task-work is required, with a total of nine counselors
needed.
Under the optimal proposal, 49% of the time is expended
in counseling and interviews and 22% on mail and inquiries. This
is a substantial improvement.
This is a point at which productivity auditing can make a
These
significant contribution to the analysis of this problem.
and required
improvements probably increased clerical workloads,
computer and wordprocessing equipment expenses. The following are
some approaches to determining whether the costs of the extra
personnel and equipment were efficient.
85

One way is to calculate the total cost of the normal and
optimal approaches, and to subtract one from the other.
Assume that the normal costs $280,000 per year and the
optimal costs $180,000,
in counselor salaries and support
costs. On this basis, as long as the cost of clerical
personnel and the annual lease or amortized purchase cost of
a savings has been
the equipment is less than $100,000,
achieved in the overall cost of the counseling program.
The problem with that approach is the the optimal approach
not only is cheaper, but it also provides a more desirable
mix of services. Productivity auditing would call for all of
the "inputs" to the program to be translated into a single
In this case, dollars are a good measure, and we
measure.
will assume a figure of $300,000 for the normal and $25O,OOO
for the optimal. $20,000 was added to the normal for
clerical costs,
and $70,000 to the optimal for clerical and
computer costs. A single measure of the outputs must also be
created, which in this example will be "prisoner contact
hours per week", which is the total number of hours per
week,
for the entire staff of counselors, in classification
interviews, monthly interviews, and counseling sessions. The
normal proposal yields 128 hours, and the optimal yields 164
hours. A productivity index is the ratio of outputs to
inputs, or in this instance, the number of contact hours per
$100,000 of expenditure. The measures are 43 for the normal,
and 66 for the optimal. Thus,
the optimal proposal is 53%
more productive than the normal proposal, in terms of
contact hours per dollar spent.
In this way, productivity auditing allows the comparison of
situations where equipment is being substituted for labor, or one
kind of labor is being substituted for another.
Table 4 provides a final check on the analysis, before a
decision is to be made. Comparable institutions are identified,
either from volume 2 of this report, or from information
available to the person doing the study. Two types of rates are
calculated. The first is the number of employees as a percent of
total staff, and the second is the number of employees per 100
prisoners. These are two simple "ballpark" measures which allow
one to compare proposals to other institutions.
Differences may occur for several reasons.
First,
the
institutions may not be as comparable as one might desire. In
this case,
the reasons for differences should be examined, to
determine whether the comparison institution might have a better
approach or method to a problem. Another reason for differences
could be error in the comparison of one type of position to
another.
The actual duties on one "counselor" might not be
comparable to those in another institution or system.
error

The most important type of difference would be based upon
in defining
on the part of the person doing the project,
86

the job under study. Comparison might lead to revision of time or
frequency estimates, or the addition of new tasks to a job.
People who work at a given job for a long time, or who study a
job for a long time,
can get distorted concepts and perceptions
These distortions can arise because of
of work requirements.
needs for results to turn out in particular directions, or simply
because of perceptions of work tasks which have been shaped by
years of exposure to certain methods. Thus, the comparative
approach can serve as a check on such a source of error.
The final recommendation is a judgement based upon analysis
of all of the information developed on the forms. The comments
might include statements about necessary conditions
for the
such as, in the example, the purchase of
recommendation to work,
certain equipment.
D. APPLICATION TO POSTS
One
final
consideration is the application of
this
methodology to correctional officer posts. The problem is that,
while the tasks required in the post orders for a post might
the post may
require a certain amount of time to be completed,
have to be open all the time. During a 24 hour period, there may
and the remainder
be 14 hours worth of specific work to be done,
of the time might be spent in general observation of the unit, or
waiting for an incident to arise. One school of thought is that
task analysis methodologies cannot therefore be applied to posts
which must be open for specific periods of time.
There are significant contributions which such a method can
make to the management of posts. The TASK EFFICIENCY of a post
can be increased. This is the percent of the total time that a
post is open that is expended on specific tasks called for in the
post orders.
Specific tasks would be those which involve
purposeful activity other than waiting and long periods of
general observation. If a post is 80% efficient, then 80% of the
the officer is doing tasks specified in
time the post is open,
the post orders, other than waiting. If a post were only 20%
efficient,
then added duties could be added to the post orders
without adding more officer time to the post. If a cellhouse has
ten officers within it, those positions are, on the average, 60%
efficient,
then the number of officers could be reduced to six
without changing the overall responsibilities of the officers
within the unit.
There are two reservations to this method. First, sometimes
and any other
watching is a continuous responsibility of a post,
duty could distract the officer from this basic responsibility.
An example of such a situation would be a tower at the perimeter
of a prison. The problem here is essentially one of correctional
management.
Sometimes tasks can be added which do not interfere,
such as monitoring an infrequently used radio frequency. However,
this is a a type of situation where task analysis has limited
application.

87

The other reservation has to do with the maintenance of a
basic response capability to a potential situation which should
not arise. Thus , ten officers might be required in a cellhouse,
not because of tasks to be completed, but because of possible
incidents to be deterred or managed. Again,
this ultimately
becomes a correctional management judgement. However, in many
these officers can perform other duties while
such instances,
waiting for an incident to arise. In determining the extent to
which duties might be added,
a post-efficiency measure might be
useful.
E. FINAL OBSERVATIONS
The analysis of a staffing pattern can be a complex and
time-consuming process. However, the benefits can be significant,
especially at a time when budgets are tight.
The process of staffing analysis is works best if it becomes
an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event. The following
are some suggestions in implementing a post and position analysis
program at a jail or prison:
Middle
management
staff should be trained in
these
procedures,
and should conduct analyses and audits as a
routine part of management. One or two employees might be
encouraged to develop a special expertise in this area,
and
they might review the work of the managers. This might be an
appropriate role for staff from the personnel unit of the
institution. But the responsibility for such projects should
not be the sole responsibility of one or two employees
As a rule of thumb,
every position should be evaluated no
less than once every five years, and probably not more
frequently than once every two years unless major changes
are occuring in the position.
New position requests should be justified on this basis.
Even high-level positions should be audited, partly because
it promotes acceptance of the practice by lower level
and partly because useful information can be
employees,
developed.
Perhaps
the Warden really does
need
an
administrative assistant after all.....
Correctional officer posts should also be evaluated, and the
efficiency of each post should be determined. This will
promote a reasonable distribution of responsibilities
between posts.
Proposals for the staffing of new institutions should be
justified,
and re-evaluated within one or two years of the
opening of the institution.
to

If responsibility for these functions are properly delegated
trained middle-management employees, the time and effort
88

required will not be substantial for each employee,
overall benefits to the institution and employees
significant.

89

and the
will be

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes,
Ralph M.: MOTION AND TIME STUDY: DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT
OF WORK (New York, John Wiley, 1966).
and Rosen, Ellen D.: NATIONAL SURVEY OF
Benton, F. Warren,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE ATTRITION RATES (New York,
National Center for Public Productivity at John Jay College
of Criminal Justice, to be published in early 1982)
and Parsons, G., ACCOUNTING AND RESTITUTION
Callison, J.,
Oklahoma Department of
(Unpublished report,
EVALUATION
Corrections, 1978).
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections: MANUALS OF STANDARDS
(Rockville MD,
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS,
FOR
ADULT
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, 1977.)
Federal Prison Service: STAFFING GUIDE FOR THE FEDERAL PRISON
SYSTEM (Washington, D.C., Federal Prison Service, 1980).
Institute for Economic and Policy Studies:
Greiser et. al.,
CORRECTIONAL POLICY AND STANDARDS: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS IN
FIVE STATES (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980).
Institute for Public Program Analysis: WORK SCHEDULE 'DESIGN
HANDBOOK (Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, 1978).
Max: STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF LONG WORKING HOURS,
Koosoris,
Washington Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletins 791 & 791A
(Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1944).
Maryland Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning: COMPARISON OF
STAFFING IN MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES HAVING OVER 500
(unpublished
STATES
THOSE OF OTHER
POPULATION
WITH
manuscript, 1980)
Mullen,
Joan,
and Smith, Bradford: AMERICAN PRISONS AND JAILS,
VOLUME III: CONDITIONS AND COSTS OF CONFINEMENT (Washington,
D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980)
Marvin E.: MOTION AND TIME STUDY: IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY
Mundel,
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1978).
Nanda

Webb

and
Satisfaction,
Job
& Browne:
"Hours of Work,
Productivity", in PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW, VOL. II, NO. 3
445
(New York, Center for Productive Public Management,
W59th, NYC, 10019).
et. al.: UNOBTRUSIVE MEASURES: NONREACTIVE RESEARCH IN THE
SOCIAL SCIENCES, (Chicago, Rand McNally, 1966).

90

2

TASKFREQUENCY ANALYSIS
time
TASK
period
tally
#
#

92

#

3

JOB DEFINITION

TASK

total direct time
+ on-job allowances
+ relief factor
total hours per week

+ workhours per week
total positions required

normal
total
frequency rate

optimal
total
frequency rate

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
ADVISORY BOARD
John R. Armore
Vice President
The National Alliance of
Business
Washington, D.C.

Stephen Horn
President
California State University
at Long Beach
Long Beach, California

Benjamin F. Baer
Acting Chairman
U.S. Parole Commission
Bethesda, Maryland

Robert J. Kutak
Attorney
Omaha, Nebraska

Norman Carlson
Director
Bureau of Prisons
Washington, D.C.
Bennett J. Cooper
Director
Division of Administration
of Justice
Columbus, Ohio
Robert F. Diegelman
Acting Administrator
Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration
Washington,. D.C.
Shirley Gray
Director
Foothill Area Office
County of Los Angeles
Probation Department
Pasadena, California
Dorcas Hardy
Assistant Secretary for
Development
Department of Health and
Human Services
Washington, D.C.

Charles Laurer
Acting Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention
Washington, D.C.
A. Leo Levin
Director
Federal Judicial Center
Washington, D.C.
William Lucas
Sheriff, Wayne County
Detroit, Michigan
W. Walter Menninger
Director
Division of Law Psychiatry
Menninger Foundation
Topeka, Kansas
Norval Morris
Professor
University of Chicago
Law School
Chicago, Illinois
Vincent O'Leary
President
State University of
New York
Albany, New York

U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Corrections

Washington. D. C. 20534

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Justice
Jus-434

PLANNING AND EVALUATING
PRISON AND JAIL STAFFING
VOLUME II
F. WARREN BENTON, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORE
DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1975-1979
OCTOBER 1981

This project was supported by Grant Number CB-3 from the National
Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of
view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice.

SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTORY EXPLANATION
A. INTRODUCTION
This volume includes detailed descriptions of the staffing
1980. The
patterns of twenty institutions, as of Summer,
have been developed from institutional
descriptions
source
documents, systematically entered into a microcomputer data base,
and processed so as to provide standard descriptions with
reference measures.
The volume is intended as a resource in planning and
evaluating prison staffing pattern, as the institutions have been
selected so as to illustrate a variety of approaches to
institutional *operation, varying in terms of institutional size,
institutional
design,
staffing intensity,
civilianization,
program objectives, and prisoner characteristics.
The collection of staffing descriptions may serve as a
specific source of reference institutions in the application of
the Multiple Methods Approach to staff evaluation described in
Volume One. However, it should be understood that this is not the
only source of such data,
and that often a more realistic
analysis can be conducted through the identification of one or
reference institutions' sharing similar relevent
more "live"
characteristics with the subject institution. Use of this volume
is usually less expensive and faster, but not necessarily better.
B. SUMMARY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL REPORT CONTENTS
For each of the twenty institutions,
a specific report is
some explanation of
presented. Because the reports are complex,
terms and approaches is necessary. This will be accomplished
through a narrative review of the first institutional report,
which describes the staffing of the Auburn Correctional Facility,
of the New York State Department of Correctional Services.
The first page shows the calculation of the coverage factor,
based upon data which-is specific to each institution. For a more
detailed discussion of such calculations,
see pages 30-34 of
Volume I.

1

The bottom-half of the first page begins a summary of the
specific posts and positions which make up the overall staffing
pattern. The functional categories were described in Chapter Four
of Volume I, but the following is a list of those categories:
Administration
Business management
Support operations
Programs and activities
Medical and treatment
Control points
Perimeter security
Unit supervision
Internal activity and yard
External and other
Thus,
the bottom of the first page provides a summary of
administrative positions at the Auburn facility, and subsequent
sections provide summaries of other categories of posts and
positions, in the order identified in the above list.
For each position, seven pieces of information are provided,
as follows:
The name of the position is the first
"warden", "secretary", or "doctor".

element,

such

as

The location of the position is the next element, defining
the general area of the institution where the position is
assigned.
For correctional officer posts, this may define
the position more specifically than the name.
The
shift,
such as "office hours", or "continuous",
identifies the general time period when the post is open or
the position is on duty.

The next element, labeled "factor", indicates whether or not
the position or post must be continuously covered when open.
If this is the case,
then the coverage factor is applied.
There are three possible answers which appear in the column
for each position.
"Y" means that the position is factored,
and "*" means that the
“N" means that it is not factored,
position is reverse-factored. This would occur when four
positions,
for example, are assigned for a post which is
supposed to be staffed continuously,
such as four boiler
operators. Reverse-factoring causes the number of available
positions (in this instance 4) to be assumed as a given, and
the number of persons on duty is then an estimate of the
average level of staffing of the post. For instance, in
five telephone
Administration
for the Auburn facility,
operators is insufficient to provide the 5.43 needed for 24
hour coverage. As a result, the post is shown as staffed at
a level of 0.9, which means that about 90% of the time the
position would be staffed, unless overtime is incurred.

2

ABSTRACT

(both volumes) has three major purposes. The first is to identify
methods of analysis and evaluation of staffing levels. These
include task analysis,
motion and time study, productivity
auditing,
outcome analysis, process analysis,
and comparative
analysis. A specific method is presented, called the Multiple
Methods Approach because several staff evaluation techniques are
independently applied.
The report provides instructions and
necessary forms so that an institutional manager may apply this
approach. The second purpose is to describe alternative methods
of organizational structure and shift or roster management for
prisons and jails.
Concepts presented include traditional,
project,
and matrix organizational structures, unit management,
as well as specific approaches to staffing housing units. The
third purpose is to document current staff levels of twenty
institutions representing jails and prisons which are both new
and old, and large and small. The staffing patterns are presented
and compared within the following categories: administration,
business management,
support operations, programs and services,
medical and treatment,
control points, perimeter security, unit
supervision,
internal activity and yard, and external positions.
In addition,
summary tables are presented illustrating rates of
employment per hundred prisoners from several other studies,
including a survey of 162 prisons. The monograph is divided into
two volumes.
The first contains all of the material except for
the specific staffing patterns themselves. These have been placed
in the second volume, including an introductory explanation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

I. INTRODUCTORY EXPLANATION
A. INTRODUCTION
B. SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL REPORT CONTENTS

1
2

II. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS
OLDER SECURE FACILITIES
AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA
MINNESOTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ST. CLOUD
IOWA STATE PENITENTIARY, FORT MADISON

5
13
21
29

NEWER SECURE FACILITIES
JOE HARP CORRECTIONAL CENTER, OKLAHOMA
MINN. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, OAR PARK HEIGHTS
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, MARION, ILLINOIS
MECHLENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER, VIRGINIA
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION, CANADA
MANNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, S. CAROLINA

36
41
48
54
59
66

OLDER LOW SECURITY FACILITIES
CAMP GEORGETOWN, NEW YORK
FEDERAL PRISON CAMP, ALLENWOOD, VIRGINIA

71
76

NEWER LOW SECURITY FACILITIES
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ILLINOIS
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FORT WORTH

82
89

LOCAL FACILITIES
PENITENTIARY, ONANDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y.
BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION, NEW YORK CITY
METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY
REPLACEMENT FACILITY, ONANDAGA COUNTY, N.Y.
MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION, NEW YORK CITY

i v

96
101
106
112
118
123

The next category, labeled "Y", indicates the intended level
Of staffing of the position. For example, the Superintendent
is identified as a "l", meaning that there is only one
person in this job. On the next page, under "Business
Management", six Account Clerks are identified.
identifying
The next column is labeled "Span of Control",
the number of employees directly supervised by the described
position. In the Auburn example, the Superintendent is shown
as having a span of control of four employees, which are the
three deputies and a secretary. Span of control is discussed
in more detail on page 27 of Volume I.
The final figure in each column represents the total
positions needed to provide the described level of staffing
for the indicated shift(s).
Each position for the entire institution is described in
this manner, following the list of categories identified above.
The last two pages of each descriptive report provide a
First, a
detailed analysis of the staffing pattern presented.
table is presented which summarizes the total number of positions
by category. Thus,
in the Auburn example, all 619 positions are
indicates the
labeled " % ",
The
next column,
accounted for.
percent of all positions representeed by each category. The
column labeled "Rate per 100 Prisoners" provides the number of
positions, by category, per hundred prisoners in the institution.
The "Standard Cost per 100 Prisoners" should be interpreted
and not as an
relative to other institutions in the data base,
cost
per hundred
describes
the
However,
it
absolute cost.
organized as it is in this
prisoners of a given function,
institution.
illustrates the
"Staff Summary by Shift",
The next table,
for
numbers of employees, and the rates per hundred prisoners,
each shift, and for various category groupings. In the Auburn
total
the table illustrates that there are 619
example,
employees,
constituting 36 per hundred prisoners. However, only
34 of these are on duty at any given time on the night shift,
providing an effective ratio of 2 per hundred prisoners. Of
these, only 16 are correctional officers in housing units.
At the bottom of this page, the Average Span of Supervisory
Control is presented, which is the average span for all employees
supervising other employees.
Under that is an analysis of
It determines whether the total
correctional officer positions.
number of authorized correctional officers, plus the average
is sufficient to
number of officers generated through overtime,
"Congruence"
cover the number of posts and positions identified.
is the ratio of needed officers divided by available officers. It
If it exceeds 1.00,
should be somewhere between 0.95 and 0.99.
requiring either
then there is a shortage of officers for posts,
or fewer posts. Note that the "Authorized CO's"
m o r e officers,
does not include those whose posts are usually filled by
3

and whose post or position descriptions are described
civilians,
five
in
the
first
categories
(Administration
through
These positions are deleted from both the
Medical/Treatment).
needed officers and the available officers in calculating the
ratio.
The
"Key Function Positions" table illustrates
total
positions are rates for specific categories of positions. Medical
and mental health position totals should be interpreted with
caution since much of these services are provided through
contractual relationships.
On the last page,
some of the measures from the previous
are
illustrated
in
graphic
format. With some experience,
page
these charts can be interpreted to provide rapid insights into
staffing pattern characteristics, and cues as to areas for
further analysis.
The final table indicates the number of days per month, or
per year, which should be accumulated in order to fulfill
responsibilities
to employees such as annual leave,
training,
etc. Unless these numbers of days are accrued each month,
the
institution will get behind,
and have to suffer shortages of
available employees at the end of the fiscal year to fulfill the
obligations.
The overall purpose of the descriptions is to enable an
insightful analysis and review of the staffing patterns of twenty
very different institutions. These may serve as models for the
planning or evaluation of other institutional staffing patterns.

4

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:

365
104
261
25
11
11
5
1
6
202
1.29
5.43
1.81

COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

##################X#######################################################
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

9

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMIN. SERVICES
PROGRAM SERVICES
SECURITY
SUPERINTENDENT
DPTY: ADMIN SVCS
DPTY: PGRM SVCS
SWITCHBOARD
PERSONNEL
INMATE GRIEVANCE

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

SUPERINTENDENT
DEPUTY SUPT.
DEPUTY SUPT.
DEPUTY SUPT.
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
TELEPHONE OPERATORS
SECRETARY
SUPERVISOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

5

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N

1.0 4
1.0 8
1.0 11
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
0.9 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
14.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PRINCIPAL CLERK
STEWARD
HEAD ACCT CLERK
BUDGET ANALYST
ACCOUNT CLERK
SENIOR ACCT CLERK
ACCOUNT CLERKS
STENO/TYPISTS
PAYROLL CLERK
CLERK SUPERV
CLERKS
STENOGRAPHER
SENIOR CLERK
CLERKS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
PERSONNEL
COMMISSARY
COMMISSARY
TRAINING
CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
5.0

2
9
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
6.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
29.00

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 1
1.0 2
1.4 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 12
1.0 2
1.1 0
1.3 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
5.0 1
5.0 0
1.0 0
3.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00
7.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
46.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

ASST. COOK
JANITOR
STORES CLERK
STORES CLERK
FOOD SERVICE MANAGER
ASST. MANAGER
HEAD COOK
COOKS
MEAT CUTTER
LAUNDRY SUPERV
PLANT SUPT.
SUPERVISOR
STATIONARY ENGINEERS
ASST. STAT. ENGINEERS
MECHANIC
MECHANIC
FOREMEN
ASSISTANTS
VEHICLE MECHANIC
VEHICLE OPERATORS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
INVENTORY
INVENTORY
FOOD SERVICE
FOOD SERVICE
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
LAUNDRY
MAINTENANCE
STAT. ENGINEERS
BOILER
BOILER
PLANT OPERATIONS
REFRIGERATION
BLDG MAINTENANCE
BLDG MAINTENANCE
GARAGE
GARAGE

6

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

SENIOR COUNSELOR
COUNSELORS
COUNSELORS
CLERK/TYPISTS
CLERK/TYPISTS
CHAPLAINS
DIRECTOR
TYPIST/STENO
TEACHER SUPERVISOR
TEACHERS
TEACHER SUPERVISOR
TEACHERS
TYPIST
SUPERVISOR
TEACHERS
TEACHER
LIBRARIAN
SUPERVISOR
STENO/TYPIST
TEACHER
COUNSELOR
STENO/TYPIST
HEAD CLERK
CLERKS
TYPISTS
INTERVIEWER
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

CASE MANAGEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION
CASE MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION
CHAPEL
EDUCATION
EDUCATION DIR.
EDUCATION
ACADEMIC EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
MUSIC EDUCATION
INMATE LIBRARY
VOLUNTEER SERVICES
VOLUNTEER SERVICES
SPECIAL HOUSING
SPECIAL HOUSING
SPECIAL HOUSING
RECORDS
RECORDS
RECORDS
TEMPORARY RELEASE
TEMPORARY RELEASE

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
QFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N 1.0 15 1.00
N 13.0 1 13.00
N 2.0 1 2.00
N 9.0 0 9.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 18 1.00
N 10.0 0 10.00
N 1.0 18 1.00
N 17.0 0 17.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 2.0 3 2.00
N 6.0 0 6.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
83.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PHYSICIANS
DENTISTS
NURSE ADMINISTRATOR
PHARMACIST
NURSES
RADIOLOGY TECH
SENIOR CLERK
TYPIST/STENO
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL RECORDS
MEDICAL

7

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N

2.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0

2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0

2.00
2.50
1.00
1.00
7.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
16.50

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CONTROL POINTS

ASST. DEPUTY SUPERINT
CAPTAIN
WATCH COMMANDER
ASST. WATCH COMMANDER
SERGEANT
ENTRANCE
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
ENTRANCE
TRAFFIC CONTROL
GUN NEST
GUN NEST
CONTROL CENTER
OFFICER
N DINING GAS BOOTH
S DINING GAS BOOTH
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
WALL,YARD,ACTIVITIES
NORTHYARD/ADM.BLDG
FRONT DOOR
VISITING LOBBY
VISIT FRISK
LOWER CONTROL ROOM
UPPER LOBBY
UPPER CONTROL ROOM
UPPER CONTROL ROOM
ARSENAL
DEPTY SUPT OFFICE
C&D BLOCK
MAIN YARD
MAIN YARD
MAIN YARD
YARD AREA
SHOP GATE
l:OO-9:00
l:OO-9:00
NORTH CONTROL CTR
COMMISSARY GATE
FIRE & SAFETY

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
NIGHT,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
OFFICE HRS

N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N

1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVE,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

5.0 0 27.13
3.0 0 5.43
2.0 0 7.24
1.0 0 1.29
1.0 0 1.81
1.0 0 3.62
46.51

5
1
4
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
5.17
5.43
1.81
3.62
1.29
5.43
3.62
1.81
5.43
1.81
5.43
1.81
5.43
1.81
3.62
1.81
3.62
1.81
3.62
3.62
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.00
77.20

PERIMETER SECURITY

TOWERS
TOWERS
TOWERS
TOWER
GATE
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

#1,3,7,10,12
#2,4,9
#5,11
#9
WALL STREET
WIRE GATE

8

POSITION

*****

LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

UNIT SUPERVISION

SERGEANT
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

UNITS
HOSPITAL
SPECIAL HOUSING
SPECIAL HOUSING
MENTAL HYGIENE SAT
MENTAL HYGIENE SAT
A BLOCK
B BLOCK
C BLOCK
D BLOCK
E BLOCK

9

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0 13 7.24
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 3.62
2.0 0 10.85
1.0 0 1.81
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 10.85
2.0 0 10.85
99.49

*****

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

SERGEANT
SERGEANT
ESCORT
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
ESCORT OFFICERS
SECURITY
PORTERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
PROCESSING
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
BASEMENT & RECR
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
EVENING RECREATION
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
ESCORT
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS

AREAS
AREAS
TRUCK
VISITING ROOM
VISIT SNACK ROOM
DIAL HOME PGRM
CLINIC
CLINIC
LOWER
HALL
ADM BLDG
PAROLE CLOTHING
PACKAGE ROOM
RECEPTION & RELEASE
CORRESPONDENCE
IDENTIFICATION OFFICE
LAW LIBRARY
ORIENTATION
MAIN YARD
SOUTH YARD
SOUTH YARD
RECREATION
YARD PATROL
SHOP PATROL
KITCHEN
NORTH DINING
KITCHEN
BAKERY
EMPLOYEE DINING
STOREHOUSE
SOUTH DINING
COMMISSARY
LAUNDRY
BATHHOUSE
CLOTHING ROOM
TAILORING CLASS
MAINTENANCE GANG
ELECTRIC SHOP
MAINTENANCE GANGS
OUTSIDE UTILITY GANGS
INCINERATOR GANG
TRASH GANG #l
TRASH GANG #2
LOCK REPAIRS
INDUSTRY SHOPS
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
BARBER SHOP & YARD
SCHOOL & MOVIES
LIBRARY/HOBBY SHOP
CHAPEL AREA
GYMNASIUM
LOCKER ROOM
ACTIVITY ROOM
MAIN YARD
SOUTH YARD 1 0

DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVENING,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL

Y 4.0 14 7.24
Y 1.0 14 2.58
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.3 0 1.81
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 5.0 0 9.04
Y 5.0 0 18.09
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 3.0 0 5.43
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 4.0 0 7.24
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 2.0 0 2.58
Y 2.0 0 2.58
Y 1.0 0 1 . 8 1
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 20.0 0 36.18
Y 4.0 0 7.24
Y 1.0 0 1.29
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 5.0 0 9.04
Y 1.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 3.62
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 1.0 0 1.81
Y 2.0 0 3.62
Y 3.0 0 5.43

POSITION

*****

LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

LIEUTENANT
BUS OFFICERS
RELIEF OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRAINING
TRANSPORTATION
SUPPORT SERVICES

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
Y
N

1.0
4.0
1.0

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

1
0
0

1.00
5.17
1.00
7.17
619.16

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY
POSITIONS

AREA

14.0
29.0
46.0
83.0
16.5
77.2
46.5
99.5
200.3
7.2
619.2

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL
STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

%

2.3
4.7
7.4
13.4
2.7
12.5
7.5
16.1
32.3
1.2
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

71 4
94 6
21 1
121 7
306 18

5 0
1 0
18 1
58 3
82 5

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

RATE
PER
100 P.
0.8
1.7
2.7
4.9
1.0
4.5
2.7
5.9
11.8
0.4
36.4
NITE
# R
3
1
16
13
34

0
0
1
1
2

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

5.44

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL:

434.00
30.00
464.00
430.65
33.36
0.93

11

TOTE
# R
89 5
100 6
99 6
331 19
619 36
#

R

11 1
0 0
0 0
33 2
37 2

SUMMARY CHART
NEW YORK: AUBURN CORR. FACILTIY
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
#######################I######
##################
#####
2 ##
36 ####################################
0
5 #####
5 #####
6 ######
6 ######
19 ###############I####
1 #
0

1700
29
18
5

2
2
1
1
1

##
##
#
#
#

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

897
395
395
179
36
215
505

10766
4737
4737
2153
431
2584
6060

393
173
173
79
16
94
0

4713
2074
2074
943
189
1131
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

12

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
U.S.P. ATLANTA
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS
#########################################################################
CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
15
10
6
5
2
2
221
1.18
4.96
1.65

~########################################################################
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

2

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
WARDEN
OPERATIONS
CONTROLS
PROGRAMS
INDUSTRIES
AW OPERATIONS
AW CONTROLS
AW PROGRAMS
AW PROGRAMS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
SECRETARY
EXEC. ASST.
ASSOC. WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDEN
SUPERINTENDENT
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
ADM ASST
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

13

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

7
0
0
5
5
10
3
0
0
4
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00

POSITION

*****

-LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PERSONNEL OFFICER
BUSINESS MANAGER
ASST. PERSONNEL OFFIC
TRAINING COORD
PERSONNEL SPEC
CLERK
ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE
PURCHASING AGENT
ASST. PURCHASING AGEN
SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
ASST. SUPERVISOR
COMMISSARY TRAINEE
CLERKS
CASHIER
CLERK
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
ADM. ASST
ACCOUNTANTS
ACCOUNTANTS
PURCHASING AGENTS
ORDER CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
COMMISSARY
ACCOUNTING
COMMISSARY
COMMISSARY
TRUST FUND
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES

14

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
1.0

2
1
2
0
1
0
6
0
0
1
3
1
4
0
0
0
2
6
0
3
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
34.OG

POSITION

*****

LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

CHIEF: MECHANICAL SER
ADMINISTRATOR
SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
LAUNDRYMAN
EXCHANGE OFFICERS
STOREKEEPER
STOREKEEPERS
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRAT
COOK FOREMEN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASST
FOREMAN
CHIEF OF UTILITIES
GENERAL FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMEN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMEN
FOREMAN
ASST. TO CHIEF
UTILTIY OPERATORS
FOREMAN
SAFETY OFFICERS
CHIEF WAREHOUSEMAN
WAREHOUSE FOREMEN
FOREMAN SUPERVISOR
MAINTENANCE FOREMEN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MAINTENANCE
FOOD SERVICES
CLOTHING SERVICES
SUPPLIES
CLOTHING SERVICES
CLOTHING SERVICES
RECEIVING
WAREHOUSES
FOOD SERVICE
KITCHEN
CHIEF: MECH SERV
CONSTRUCTION
UTILITIES
MAINTENANCE
MASONRY
CARPENTRY
PAINTING
ELECTRONICS
MACHINE SHOP
ELECTRICAL
PLUMBING
SHEET METAL
AUTO REPAIR
LANDSCAPE
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
AIRCONDITIONING
UTILITIES
BOILER
PIPEFITTING
ALL AREAS
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES

15

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 4 1.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 2 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 4 1.00
4.2 0 14.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 19 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
5.0 0 5.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.2 0 6.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
1.0 9 1.00
5.0 2 5.00
1.0 10 1.00
10.0 0 10.00
76.00

-.

POSITION

*****

-LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

CHIEF CLASS & PAROLE
COORDINATOR
PRINCIPAL
CHAPLAIN
ASST. SUPERVISOR
CASEWORKERS
CLERKS
ASST. MANAGER TRAINEE
ASSISTANT
SUPERVISOR
ASSISTANT
FILE CLERKS
ADM. CLERK
DATA ANALYST
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
PRINCIPAL
ASST. PRINCIPAL
CLERK
TRAINERS
SUPERVISOR
SPECIALISTS
TEACHERS
TEACHERS
TREATMENT SPECIALIST
ASST. SUPERINTENDENT
FACTORY MANAGERS
PRODUCTION CONTROLLER
TEXTILE SPECIALIST
FOREMAN
SUPERVISOR
INDUSTRIAL COUNSELORS
MANAGER
COST ANALYST
MARKETING SPECIALIST
MARKETING ASST.
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER
SUPERVISOR, QUALITY C
ENGINEER
ASSISTANT MANAGER
MANAGEMENT TRAINEES
FOREMEN
FOREMEN
FOREMEN
FOREMEN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

CLASS & PAROLE
CASEMANAGEMENT
EDUCATION
CHAPEL
PAROLE
PAROLE
PAROLE
RECORDS
CLASSIFICATION
RECORDS CONTROL
RECORDS CONTROL
RECORDS
RECORDS
RECORDS
RECORDS
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
PRINCIPAL
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
RECREATION
RECREATION
REMEDIAL EDUCATION
ACADEMIC EDUCATION
DRUG ABUSE
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
QUALITY CONTROL
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
INDUSTRIES
TEXTILE DIVISION
TEXTILE DIVISION
TEXTILES
TEXTILES
TEXTILES
TEXTILES
INDUSTRIES
TEXTILE MILL
TEXTILE MILL
TEXTILE MILLS
CANVAS FACTORY
BASKET FACTORY
MATTRESS FACTORY

16

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N 1.0 4 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 5 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 23 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 11.0 0 11.00
N 1.0 0 l.O0
N 1.0 8 1.00
N 5.0 7 5.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 9 1.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 28.0 0 28.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
114.00

POSITION

*****

LOCATION

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
PSYCHOLOGIST
SOCIAL SERVICE ASST.
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
PSYCHOLOGIST
PSYCH TECH
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATO
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
RECORDS TECH
SECRETARY
DENTISTS
PURCHASING AGENT
TECHNICIAN
PHYSICIAN'S ASST.
PHARMACIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
DRUG ABUSE
DRUG ABUSE
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL SPECIALTIES
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
RECORDS
MEDICAL
MEDICAL

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS

POSITION

LOCATION

SHIFT

SECURITY
SECURITY
CORRIDORS
CONTROL ROOM
CONTROL ROOM
CUSTODY
ENTRANCE

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,M-F

N
*
Y
Y
Y
N
Y

1.0 3 1.00
3.0 11 15.00
2.0 0 9.92
1.0 0 4.96
1.0 0 1.65
3.0 0 3.00
1.0 0 2.36
37.90

CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y

7.0
1.0
1.0

*****

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.4
1.0

0 1.00
0 1.00
0 1.00
9 1.00
1 1.00
0 1.00
0 4.00
1 1.00
7 1.00
0 1.00
0 1.00
0 3.00
0 1.00
1 1.00
0 12.00
0 1.00
32.00

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISORY OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CLERKS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TOWERS
TOWERS
PATROL

17

0 34.72
0 3.31
0 4.96
42.99.

POSITION

*****

DRUG ABUSE
CELLHOUSES

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS

N 1.0
Y 12.0

5 1.00
0 59.52
60.52

OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2.00
1.65
3.31
3.31
6.61
1.65
9.92
1.65
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
36.01

CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F

Y
Y

2.0
2.0

0
0

9.92
2.36
12.28

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

CORRECTIONAL COUNSEL0
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

UNIT SUPERVISION

PROGRAM MANAGER
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

-LOCATION

DRUG ABUSE
RECEIVING & DISCHARGE
VISITING
RECEPTION
RECREATION
RECREATION
YARD
PATROL
TOOL ROOM
MAIL ROOM
RECREATION
SHOPS
RECEIVING & DISCHARGE

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OTHER POSTS
BUS

456.70

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

18

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
U.S.P. ATLANTA
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

11.0
34.0
76.0
114.0
32.0
37.9
43.0
60.5
36.0
12.3
456.7

AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

RATE
PER
100 P.

2.4
7.4
16.6
25.0
7.0
8.3
9.4
13.3
7.9
2.7
100.0

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.
15,104
39,853
89,082
133,624
48,225
35,536
40,311
56,752
33,770
11,517
503,773

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

TOTL
# R

106 7
136 9
13 1
43 3
299 20

5 0
2 0
12 1
24 2
44 3

1 0
2 0
12 1
16 1
32 2

121 8
146 10
61 4
129 9
457 31

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERSOTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL

%

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

4.38

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

232.00
242.00
189.70
52.30
0.78

19

#

R

21 1
4 0
88 6
25 2
20 1

SUMMARY CHART
U.S.P. ATLANTA
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

-

1490
18
20
3
2
31
0
4
8
10
4
9
1
0
6
2
1
1
1
1

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################
####################
###
###############################
####
#########
##########
####
#########
#
#######
##
#
#
#

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

237
158
95
79
32
32
184

2846
1897
1138
949
379
379
2210

334
223
134
111
45
45
0

4005
2670
1602
1335
534
534
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

20

NON-OFFICERS

##########################################################################

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
18
10
8
3
2
2
218
1.20
5.03
1.68

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

10

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
LIVING UNITS
GLU
SUPT.
ASST.UPT.
TRAINING
TRAINING

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

SUPERINTENDENT
ASSOC. SUPT.
GEN. MANAGER
CLERK STENO
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
DIRECTOR
TRAINER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

21

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 7
1.0 9
1.0 10
2.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00

POSITION

* * *

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS MANAGER
PERSONNEL DIR.
PERSONNEL AIDE
SECRETARY
SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR
ACCOUNTANTS
MANAGER
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTANTS
ACCOUNT CLERK
ACCOUNTANTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
SWITCHBOARD
WELFARE FUND
CANTEEN
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
INDUSTRIES

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFF-ICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 11
1.0 2
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 5
4.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
16.00

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 1
1.0 4
4.0 0
1.0 2
1.0 0
1.0 5
5.0 0
1.0 11
6.0 0
5.0 0
1.0 4
1.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
6.O0
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
29.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

FOOD MANAGER
CHIEF COOK
COOKS
PLANT DIRECTOR
INVENTORY SUPERV.
FOREMAN,B.MAINT.
B.
MAINT
STAFF
CHIEF ENGINEER
ENGINEERS
ENGINEER STAFF
EXECUTIVE
VAN
DRIVER
MACHINIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

KITCHEN
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
BOILER
BOILER
MECHANICAL
WAREHOUSE
WAREHOUSE
INDUSTRIES

22

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

PROGRAM COORD.
INDUSTRIES SUPT.
CHAPLAINS
CASEWORKERS
RECR. DIR.
CASEWORKERS
CASEWORKERS
CASEWORKER
CASEWORKERS
CASEWORKER
HEARING OFFICER
HRNG.INVESTIGATOR
STENOGRAPHER
DIRECTOR
RECDS.SUPERV
RECDS.CLEAKS
RELEASE CLERKS
DATA ENTRY CLERKS
PLACEMENT OFFICER
DIRECTOR
SUPERVISOR
ACAD. TEACHERS
LIBRARIAN
AIDES
SUPERVISOR
COUNSELORS
SUPERVISOR
VOTEC TEACHERS
CLERK
SALESMAN
PLANT MANAGERS
FOREMEN
TEACHERS
VAN DRIVER
SUPERVISOR
COUNSELORS
SECRETARIES
WORK EVALUATOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

LIVING UNITS
ADMINISTRATION
CHAPEL
PLANNING UNIT
RECR.AREAS
UNIT A
UNIT C
UNIT D
UNIT E
RESHAPE
INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION
SUPPORT SVES.
RECORDS
RECORDS
RELEASE
DATA ROOM
PLACEMENT
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
HIGHER EDUC.
HIGHER EDUC.
VOCATIONAL
VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
VOC-REHAB
VOC-REHAB
VOC-REHAB
VOC-REHAB

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVE,M-F
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVE,M-F
EVENING,ALL
EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 5 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 5.0 0 5.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 4 1.00
N 1.0 15 1.00
N 14.0 0 14.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 2.0 10 2.00
N 10.0 0 10.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
93.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST
PSYCHOLOGIST
MEDICAL TECH
NURSES
PARAMEDICS
DENTIST
DENTIST
DENTAL TECHS
PHARMICIST
PHARM. TECH.
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PSYCH DEPT.
PSYCH.DEPT.
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY 2
INFIRMARY

3

1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
2.3
1.0
0.3

3
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.75
2.25
1.00
0.30
15.30

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CUSTODY
CUSTODY
CUSTODY
CUSTODY
ASSIGNMENTS
CAGES 1&2
CAGES l&2
CAGE 1
CORRIDOR
FOOD SERVICE
EDUCATION
DESK
SWITCHBOARD
TURNKEY
COUNT
HEARING BOARD

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL

N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

10
6
2
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2.00
10.06
6.70
1.68
1.00
1.68
1.68
1.68
3.35
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.68
3.35
3.35
1.68
44.90

CONTINUOUS
EVENING,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 0
1.0 0
5.0 0
0.5 0
1.0 0

5.03
1.68
8.38
0.84
1.68
17.60

CONTROL POINTS

CAPTAINS
LIEUTENANTS
LIEUTENANTS
LIEUTENANTS
LIEUTENANT
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
CORRIDOR
GATE
INFORMATION
COMMUNICATION
TURNKEY
COUNT CONTROL
SECURITY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERIMETER SECURITY

PATROL
PATROL
TOWERS 1-5
TOWERS l-5
TRUCK GATE
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OUTSIDE
OUTSIDE
TOWERS
HALF-TIME
TRUCK GATE

24

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

LOCATION

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

UNIT SUPERVISION

DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
SHIFT SUPERVISORS
CCII.
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
CCIII:PROGRAMS
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST. DIR.
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
CCII
CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
ASST.DIR.
INT.PGM.COORD..
CCII
HEAD CCII
CCII
HEAD CCII
CCII
DIRECTOR
CCII
SUPERVISOR
SECURITY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PLANNING UNIT
PLANNING UNIT
PLANNING UNIT
PLANNING UNIT
PLANNING UNIT
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT D
UNIT D
UNIT D
UNIT D
UNIT D
UNIT D
UNIT E
UNIT E
UNIT E
UNIT E
UNIT E
ICU
ICU
ICU
ICU
ICU
ICU
RESHAPE
RESHAPE
RESHAPE
RESHAPE
RSHPE OUTSIDE
RSHPE OUTSIDE
RSHPE TRANS
RSHPE TRANS.
ATC
ATC
UNIT SECURITY
UNITS

25

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAYCEVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAYtEVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
NIGHT,ALL

N
N
*
*
*
N
N
*
*
*
N
N
*
*
*
N
N
N
*
*
*
N
N
*
*
*
N
N
*
*
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y

1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.2
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
3.0

2
6
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
4
6
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
5
0

1.00
1.03
4.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
7.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
5.03
108.53

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

CCII
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
ACTIVITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

RECR.AREAS
WAREHOUSE
CANTEEN
PATROL
PATROL
FOOD SERVICE
SCHOOL
GYMNASIUM
VISITING
HEALTH SERVICE
INDUSTRIES

EVENING,ALL
DAYCEVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL

N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0 1.00
0 3.00
2 1.00
0 10.06
0 3.35
0 5.03
0 6.70
0 10.06
0 1.68
0 1.68
0 1.68
45.23

DAY,ALL

Y

1.0

0

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

TRANSPORT
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORT

1.68
1.68
380.23

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

26

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

9.0
16.0
29.0
93.0
15.3
44.9
17.6
108.5
45.2
1.7
380.2

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT,:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

3.78
205.00
10.00
215.00
217.94
2.94
1.Ol

%

2.4
4.2
7.6
24.5
4.0
11.8
4.6
28.5
11.9
0.4
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

54 9
96 16
46 8
38 6
234 39

10 2
18 3
38 6
29 5
94 16

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.
30,750
46,667

1.5
2.7
4.8
15.5
2.6
7.5
2.9
18.1
7.5
0.3
63.4

$
$
$
$
$
NITE
# R
6
2
16
7
31

1
0
3
1
5

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS
MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

27

41:066
253,232
105,531
3,911
999,142
TOTL
# R
54
108
109
109
380

9
18
18
18
63

#

R

6
4
18
38
17

1
1
3
6
3

SUMMARY CHART
MINNESOTA C.F. : ST. CLOUD
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

600
19
39
16
5
63
1
4
9
18
18
18
1
1
3
6
3
8
6
3

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

327
182
145
54
36
36
182

3923
2179
1743
654
436
436
2180

243
135
108
41
27
27
0

2921
1623
1298
487
325
325
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

28

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:

1.23
5.17
1.72

COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

15

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
15
9
13
9
1
2
212

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
AMINISTRATION
WARDEN
DIV CRIM INVEST
ATTY GEN
ADM ASST
GRIEVANCES
ADMINISTRATION
DEPUTY WARDEN

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
ADM. ASSISTANT
INVESTIGATOR
LAWYER
TYPIST
COUNSELOR
RECEPTIONIST
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

29

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

7
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS MANAGER
PERSONNEL SPEC
CLERK
ADM. OFFICER
TRAINING OFFICER
TECHNICIAN
CLERK
CLERKS
CLERKS
CLERK
CLERK
TYPIST
SECRETARY
MAIL CLERKS
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

ADMINISTRATION
PERSONNEL
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING
BUSINESS MANAGER
MAIL ROOM
ACCOUNTING

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 15
1.0 2
1.0 3
1.0 13
1.0 0
1.0 3
1.0 0
1.0 0
3.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
5.0 0
1.0 0

N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
IQ
N
N
*
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
8.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
21.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

MANAGER
TECHNICIAN
SUPERVISOR
POWER TYPIST
DIETITIAN
COORDINATORS
SUPERVISOR
WAREHOUSEMEN
STOREKEEPER
SUPERVISOR
REPAIR LEADERS
REPAIR LEADERS
REPAIR LEADERS
REPAIR ASSTS.
MANAGER
SUPERVISOR
ENGINEERS
TECHNICIAN
TYPISTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PLANT OPERATIONS
ELECTRONICS
BLDGS & GRNDS
PERSONNEL
FOOD SERVICES
FOOD SERVICES
IND. WAREHOUSE
INDUSTRIES
WAREHOUSE
BUILDING SERVICES
MAINTENANCE
ELECTRICIAN
PLUMBING
ELECTRICIAN
PLANT OPERATIONS
PLANT ENGINEERS
POWER PLANT
ELECTRONICS
SUPPORT

30

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS

1 1.00
1 1.00
3 1.00
0 1.00
3 1.00
0 12.00
2 1.00
0 2.00
0 2.00
0 1.00
0 8.00
2 1.00
0 2.00
0 2.00
2 1.00
0 1.00
0 5.00
0 1.00
0 3.00
47.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

DIRECTOR OF TMT
DIRECTOR
TREATMENT DIRECTOR
PRINCIPAL
TEACHERS
TREATMENT DIRECTOR
TREATMENT DIRECTOR
COUNSELORS
COUNSELORS
CHAPLAINS
ASST. DIRECTOR
ASST. MANAGER
INDUSTRY TECH
TYPISTS
DRIVERS
INDUSTRY TECH
SUPERVISOR
COUNSELORS
SUPERVISOR
TYPISTS
CLERK TYPIST
TEACHER
TEACHER
;UPERVISOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PROGRAMS
INDUSTRIES
PENITENTIARY
SCHOOL
VOC. SCHOOL
AUG. & MONT.
BENNETT UNIT
BENNETT UNIT
AUG. & MONT.
CHAPEL
TREATMENT
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
OUTSIDE UNITS
COUNSELORS
PENITENTIARY
RECORDS
INMATE RECORDS
DORM RECORDS
BENNETT UNIT
BENNETT UNIT
FARM

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F

N 1.0 7 1.00
N 1.0 6 1.00
N 1.0 6 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 5.0 0 5.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
N 1.0 4 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 15 1.00
N 10.0 0 10.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 12 1.00
N 12.0 0 12.00
N 1.0 9 1.00
N 9.0 0 9.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
64.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
*

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

HOSPITAL ADM
PHYSICIAN
PHYSICIAN'S ASST
SUPERVISOR
PHARMACIST
DENTIST
ASSISTANTS
MEDICAL TECH
PSYCHOLOGIST
NURSES
NURSES
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
NURSING
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
PHARMACY
MEDICAL
TREATMENT
HOSPITAL
HOSPITAL

31

1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.2

2
4
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
2.00
20.00

POSITION

*****

.FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

SECURITY
CUSTODY
SECURITY
SECURITY
YARD
INVESTIGATIONS
PASSES
TURNKEY
TURNKEY
TELEVISION
TELEVISION

2
7
0
13
1
0
0
1
0
1
0

1.00
2.00
1.00
5.17
3.45
1.00
1.00
5.17
3.45
5.17
3.45
31.85

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&iEVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y

5.0 0 25.85
3.0 0 10.34
36.20

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
EVENING,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY ,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
*
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2*0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
1.2
2.0
2.0

PERIMETER SECURITY

TOWERS
TOWERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

DIRECTOR
ASST. SECURITY DIR
CLERK & PASS OFFICER
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
YARD LIEUTENANT
OFFICER
OFFICER
CONTROL
SHAKEDOWN
SURVEILLANCE
SURVEILLANCE
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

#3,5,14,15,10
#2,4,7

UNIT SUPERVISION

SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CAGE
SUPERVISOR
CAGE
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
GENERAL SUPERVISOR
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
SUPERVISOR
DESK OFFICER
WARD OFFICERS
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

UNIT #18
UNIT #18
UNIT #18
UNIT #18
UNIT #19
UNIT #19
UNIT #19
UNIT #19
UNIT #19
UNIT #20
UNIT #20
UNIT #20
UNIT #20
UNIT #20
UNIT #20
HOUSING UNITS
UNIT #17
UNIT #17
UNIT #17
UNIT #17: PC
UNIT #17: PC
BUILDING #97
HOSPITAL UNIT
HOSPITAL
HOSPITAL
J BENNETT UNIT
J BENNETT UNIT
AUGUSTACMONTROSE
AUGUSTA
32
MONTROSE

2 5.1'
1 5.17
0 3.45
0 3.45
2 5.17
0 5.17
2 5.17
0 6.89
0 2.46
5 1.00
9 5.17
0 1.72
0 20.68
0 17.24
0 1.72
19 1.00
1 5.17
1 5.17
0 3.45
5 1.00
0 5.17
0 5.17
4 1.23
2 5.17
0 5.17
7 5.17
0 31.02
10 2.00
0 10.34
0 10.34
186.21

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

STOCKADE
CAPTAIN
SECURITY
VISITING ROOM
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
DINING HALL
OFFICER
SECURITY
OFFICER
YARD
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
LIEUTENANT
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

STOCKADE
YARD
DRESSING OUT
NE & SE
YARD & RELIEF
YARD & RELIEF
YARD & RELIEF
DINING HALL
CHAPEL
VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION
OUTSIDE
ACADEMIC SCHOOL
INDUSTRIES
LIBRARY
DRUG ROOM
DRUG ROOM
ORIENT.& PROP.
GYMNASIUM
GYMNASIUM
HOBBY CRAFT
J BENNETT UNIT
AUGUSTA
MONTROSE

DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
DAYCEVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAYCEVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAYLEVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

N 1.0 0 1.00
Y 1.0 16 3.45
Y 1.0 0 1.72
Y 2.0 0 3.45
Y 10.0 0 17.24
Y 13.0 0 22.41
Y 2.0 0 3.45
Y 1.0 0 3.45
N 1.0 0 1.00
Y 3.0 0 3.69
Y 2.0 0 2.46
Y 1.0 0 1.23
Y 1.0 0 1.23
Y 2.0 0 2.46
Y 1.0 0 1.23
Y 2.0 0 3.45
Y 1.0 0 1.72
Y 2.0 0 2.46
Y 1.0 6 1.23
Y 2.0 0 6.89
Y 1.0 0 1.23
Y 2.0 0 6.89
Y 1.0 0 3.45
Y 1.0 0 3.45
100.24

DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS

Y
*

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

ESCORT
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

IOWA CITY
UNIVERSITY HOSP

3.0
1.5

0
0

3.69
8.00
11.69
527.21

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

33

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
POSITIONS

AREA

9.0
21.0
47.0
64.0
20.0
31.9
36.2
186.2
100.2
11.7
527.2

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

64 7
79 9
45 5
64 7
252 28

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

RATE
PER
100 P.

%

1.7
4.0
8.9
12.1
3.8
6.0
6.9
35.3
19.0
2.2
100.0

1.0
2.3
5.2
7.1
2.2
3.5
4.0
20.7
11.1
1.3
58.6

EVE
# R
4
1
38
38
81

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

0
0
4
4
9

NITE
# R
1
0
27
12
40

0
0
3
1
4

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

5.00

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

324.00
17.00
341.00
366.21
25.21
1.07

34

TOTL
# R
77 9
84 9
186 21
180 20
527 59
#

R

14
1
19
8
27

2
0
2
1
3

SUMMARY CHART
IOWA S. P. FORT MADISON
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

900
23
28
9
4
59
7
5
9
9
21
20
2
0
2
1
3
5
4
3

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

458
275
397
275
31
61
300

5493
3296
4761
3296
366
732
3604

201
121
174
121
13
27
0

2415
1449
2093
1449
161
322
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

35

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
15
10
8
10
3
4
211
1.24
5.20
1.73

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

****t

18

LOCATION

SHIFT

FRONT
FRONT
FRONT
FRONT
FRONT

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
PROGRAM MANAGER
WARDEN'S SECETARY
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

36

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2
5
7
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00

POSITION

*****

FRONT OFFICE
FRONT OFFICE
FRONT OFFICE

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N

1.0
2.0
2.0

2
1
0

1.00
2.00
2.00
5.00

GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
WAREHOUSE

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0

6
0
0
0
0
4
4

1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
12.00

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 1
1.0 0
8.0 0
1.0 14
4.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
3.0 0

1.00
1.00
8.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
20.00

N
Y
Y
N
N
N

1.0 18 1.00
3.0 0 5.20
3.0 0 10.39
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
19.59

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

RECORDS CLERK
CLERK
CASE MANAGERS
CASE MANAGER SUPERVIS
TEACHER
CHAPLAIN
SECRETARY
UNIT CLERKS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

MAINTENANCE SUPERVISO
MAINTENANCE REPAIRMAN
ELECTRICIAN
PLUMBER
FOOD SUPERVISOR
FOOD MANAGER
WAREHOUSEMAN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS MANAGER
ACCOUNT CLERK
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

RECORDS OFFICE
RECORDS OFFICE
UNITS A,B,C,D
PROGRAM CENTER
UNIT CLASSROOMS
CHAPEL
PROGRAM CENTER
UNIT OFFICES

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PHYSICIAN
MEDICAL SPECIALIST
PSYCH. AIDES
DENTIST
PSYCHOLOGIST
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY
SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT
INFIRMARY
SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT
INFIRMARY

37

OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

POSITION

*****

N
N
Y
Y

1.0
6.0
1.0
1.0

6
8
0
0

1.00
6.00
5.20
3.46
15.66

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y

1.0
1.0

0
0

5.20
5.20
10.39

OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS

N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

3.0 2 3.00
3.0 11 3.00
4.0 0 20.78
2.0 0 6.93
1.0 0 3.46
1.0 0 1.73
2.0 0 10.39
49.29

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAYCEVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
1.0

0
0
0

3.46
6.93
3.46
13.85

DAY,M-F

N

3.0

0

3.00
3.00

TOWER
PERIMETER

UNITS
UNITS
UNIT CONTROL CENTERS
UNIT CENTERS A C B
SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT
SPECIAL PROGRAM UNIT
DISCIPLINARY UNIT

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

KITCHEN OFFICERS
YARD SUPERVISORS
GYMNASIUM
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT MANAGERS
UNIT LIEUTENANTS
UNIT CONTROL CENTERS
UNIT BACKUPS
SPECIAL PGRMS. BACKUP
SPECIAL PROGRAMS ROVE
DISCIPLINARY UNIT
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

CONTROL CENTER
CONTROL CENTER
CONTROL CENTER
REAR CONTROL CENTER

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PERIMETER SECURITY

TOWER
PERIMETER ROVER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF OF SECURITY
SHIFT LIEUTENANTS
CONTROL CENTER
REAR ENTRANCE
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

KITCHEN
YARD
GYMNASIUM

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

TRANSPORT OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

GARAGE

153.79

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

38

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

5.0
5.0
12.0
20.0
19.6
15.7
10.4
49.3
13.9
3.0
153.8

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:.
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

12
30
13
18
83

6
8
3
5
21

6.02

%

3.3
3.3
7.8
13.0
12.7
10.2
6.8
32.1
9.0
2.0
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.
1.3
1.3
3.0
5.0
4.9
3.9
2.6
12.3
3.5
0.8
38.4

EVE
i R
0
3
12
14
29

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

0
1
3
4
7

NITE
# R
0
0
6
9
15

0
0
2
2
4

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS
MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

90.00
0.00
90.00
92.20
2.20
1.02

39

TOTL
# R
22
40
49
43
154

6
10
12
11
38

#

R

18 4
1 0
0 0
4 1
8 2

SUMMARY CHART
OKLAHOMA: JOE HARP C.C.
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE
DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

115
77
61
77
23
31
0

1383
922
738
922
277
369
0

77
51
41
51
15
21
0

924
616
493
616
185
246
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

40

#########################################################################

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:

365
104
261
18
10
8
3
2
2
218
1.20
5.03
1.68

COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

l#########################################################################
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

4

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
LEVEL 4
ADMINISTRATION
OPERATIONS
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 4
UNITS l-4
WARDEN
UNITS 5-7
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
TRAINING:3
TRAINING:3

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
SECRETARY: SUPT
ASSOC. WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDEN
SECRETARY: A.S.
SECRETARY: A.S.
DIR. OF PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE ASST.
DIR. OF PROGRAMS
INVESTIGATOR
TRAIN.DIR
SCTRY:TRAIN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

41

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 7
1.0 10
1.0 0
0.5 0
1.0 2
1.0 0
1.0 3
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.50

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

CLERKS/TYPISTS
FINANCE DIRECTOR
ACCOUNTANTS
SECRETARY: FINANCE
CLERKS
COMMISSARY MANAGER
CLERKS
PERSONNEL SPECIALIST
CLERK
BUSINESS MANAGER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

LEVEL 4
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 4
MAIL C RECORDS
COMM: 3
COMMISSARY: 3
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
INDUSTRIES

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0

3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
17.00

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

3
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
22.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

DIRECTOR
LOCKSMITH
FOREMEN
SECRETARY
DRIVER
PAINTER
MAINT. GENERALIST
PLUMBER
ENGINEERS & JANITORS
ELECTRICIAN
ELECTRONICS
FIRE & SAFETY
GROUNDSKEEPER
LAUNDRY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MAINTENANCE
ARMORY
MAINTENANCE
DIR.MAINTENANCE
COMMISSARY: 3
MAINT: 3
MAINT: 3
MAINT: 3
BOILER
MAINT: 3
MAINT: 3
MAINT: 3
MAINT: 3
LAUNDRY: 2

42

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,M-F
DAY&EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- Y SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

DIRECTOR
CLERKS/TYPISTS
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGER
LEGAL TECH
DIRECTOR
TEACHERS
VOTEC TEACHER
CHAPLAIN
SUPERINTENDENT
CLERKS
FACTORY MANAGERS
FOREMEN SUPERVISORS
FOREMEN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

DATA & INFORMATION
LEVEL 4
COMPLEX 1
COMPLEX 2
COMPLEX 3
COMPLEX 4
DISC:5
COMPLEX 7
COMPLEX 6
DISC UNIT
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION:3
CHAPEL
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
6.0

9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
2
2
0

1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
32.50

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
N
*
N
N
N
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
*

1.0 10 1.00
1.0 2 1.00
1.0 0 5.00
1.0 0 1.00
4.0 0 4.00
1.0 9 1.00
2.0 0 10.00
1.0 0 3.50
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
0.5 0 0.50
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
0.6 0 2.00
34.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

ADMINISTRATOR
CHIEF NURSE
NURSES/PARAMEDICS
OCCUPATIONAL THERApIs
PSYCHOLOGISTS
SUPERVISOR
BEHAVI'ORAL AIDES
PSYCH NURSES
SCTRY':MDIR
DENTIST
DENT.TECH.
PHARMACIST
LAB.TECH
RECORDS TECH
CLERKS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
MEDICAL:3
INFIRMARY
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
BEHAV. AIDES
MENTAL HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH
MEDICAL:3
MEDICAL:3
MEDICAL:3
MEDICAL:3
MEDICAL:3
MEDICAL:3
MENTAL HEALTH

43

POSITION

*****

PM
AM
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 4
LEVEL4
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 2
ID & COUNT
CONTROL 5

EVE,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAYtEVE,ALL
DAYCEVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALG
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
N
*
*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 12
1.0 10
1.2 2
0.2 15
1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

EVENING,ALL
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y

2.0
1.0

NIGHT,ALL
OFFICE HRS
EVENING,ALL
WKND,DAYS
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
WKND,DAYS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
NIGHT,ALL
EVENING,ALL

*

N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
*
Y
N
Y
Y

8.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0

1.00
1.00
6.00
1.00
3.35
3.35
3.35
1.68
3.35
24.09

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CAPTAIN
CAPTAIN
SHIFT OFFICER IN CHAR
ASST. SHIFT OIC
ASST SHIFT OIC
CONTROL
CONTROL CENTER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

-LOCATION

ROOF SECURITY
PERIMETER

0
0

3.35
5.03
8.38

UNIT SUPERVISION

SQUAD ROVERS
UNIT MANAGER
C.CONTROL
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
C.CONTROL
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
UNIT-MANAGER
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
UNIT MANAGERS
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
UNIT MANAGER
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
DAY OFFICER
CASE MANAGER
C.CONTROL
OFFICERS
CONTROL
C.MANAGER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

LEVEL 2
COMPLEX l&2
COMPLEX 1
COMPLEX 1
COMPLEX 1
COMPLEX 2
COMPLEX 2
COMPLEX 2
COMPLEX 3&4
COMPLEX 3
COMPLEX 3
COMPLEX 4
COMPLEX 4
DISC C SEG
DISC:5
DISC:5
DISC & SEG
COMPLEX 6&7
COMPLEX 6
COMPLEX 6
COMPLEX 6
COMPLEX 6
COMPLEX 7
COMPLEX 7
MEDICAL:2&3
MEDICAL:2&3
MEDICAL UNIT
MEDICAL UNIT

44

0 14.00
20 1.00
0 1.68
0 0.48
0 6.70
0 1.68
0 0.48
0 6.70
22 1.00
0 3.35
0 6.70
0 3.35
0 6.70
9 2.00
0 5.03
0 6.70
0 5.03
21 1.00
0 3.35
0 6.70
0 1.20
0 1.00
0 3.35
0 13.50
0 5.03
22 0.50
0 1.68
0 3.35
113.26

POSITION

*****

FAC- II SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICERS
SQUAD
ACTIVITIES COORD
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

L_OCATION

VISITING
LEVEL 2
RECREATION

EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVE,M-F

*
*
N

4.8
3.9
1.0

0 8.00
0 13.00
0 1.00
22.00

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
1.0

0 3.35
0 10.06
0 1.20
14.61

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

TRANSPORT OFFICERS
UTILITY OFFICERS
UTILITY OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OUTSIDE
ALL AREAS
ALL AREAS

299.33

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

45

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

11.5
17.0
22.0
32.5
34.0
24.1
8.4
113.3
22.0
14.6
299.3

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

%

3.8
5.7
7.3
10.9
11.4
8.0
2.8
37.8
7.3
4.9
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

46 12
41 11
32 8
16 4
135 36

5 1
15 4
28 7
22 6
70 18

7.12

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100
PRIS.

3.0
4.5
5.8
8.6
8.9
6.3
2.2
29.8
5.8
3.8
78.8

$1,264,371
NITE
# R
1
3
12
4
21

0
1
3
1
5

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

181.00
7.00
188.00
182.33
5.67
0.97

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

46

TOTL
# R
51
67
113
69
299

13
18
30
18
79

#

R

13
15
14
5
21

3
4
4
1
5

SUMMARY CHART
MINNESOTA C.F.: OAK PARK HEIGHTS

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

273
152
122
46
30
30
127

3282
1823
1459
547
365
365
1526

176
98
78
29
20
20
0

2106
1170
936
351
234
234
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

47

-- .,,-

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
U.S.P. MARION
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
15
10
6
5
2
2
221
1.18
4.96
1.65

######################################################################~
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

8

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
PROGRAMS
OPERATIONS
ASSOC WARDENS
AW-P
CAMP
CAMP

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
SECRETARY
ASSOC. WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDEN
SECRETARY
DATA ANALYST
ADMINISTRATOR
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

48

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

5
0
10
6
0
0
1
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
8.00

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS MANAGER
PERSONNEL OFFICER
CLERK
ASST.BUSINESS MANAGER
CLERKS
PURCHASING AGENTS
ACCOUNTING SUPERV
CASHIERS
CLERK
MANAGERS
TRAINERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
MAIL ROOM
BUSINESS OFFICE
TRUST FUND
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
RELIEF
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 1
1.0 4
1.0 0
1.0 10
2.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
2,0 0
2.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
15.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

CHIEF MECH. SERV.
FOOD SERVICE ADM
GENERAL FOREMAN
MAINTENANCE STAFF
SUPERVISOR
UTILITIES OPERATORS
UTILITY REPAIRMEN
STAFF
SUPPLY CLERKS
ASST. MANAGER
COOKS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MAINTENANCE
KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
UTILTIIES
BOILER
UTILITIES
CLOTHING SERVICES
STORES
FOOD SERVICES
KITCHEN

49

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL

N

1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 13 1.00
N 13.0 0 13.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
* 1.2 0 6.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
* 3.3 0 11.00
41.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

SUPERINTENDENT
CHIEF, C&P
PRINCIPAL
ADM. ASST.
FACTORY MANAGER
SUPERINTENDENT
SENIOR CASE MANAGER
SENIOR CASE MANAGER
CASE MANAGERS
CLERK
CLERK
COORDINATOR
RECREATION SPECS
TEACHERS
TEACHERS
TEACHER
CHAPLAINS
RECORDS CLERKS
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

INDUSTRY
CLASS.&PAROLE
EDUCATION
CLASS&PAROLE
FURNITURE
PRINT PLANT
CLASS&PAROLE
CLASS&PAROLE
UNITS
CLASS&PAROLE
CLASS&PAROLE
GROUP ACTIVITIES
RECREATION
VOCATIONAL
ACADEMIC
RESOURCE CENTER
CHAPEL
RECORDS
RECORDS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 2
1.0 4
1.0 10
1.0 3
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 2
1.0 2
2.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
2.0 0
4.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
28.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

MEDICAL OFFICER
ADMINISTRATOR
CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST
PSYCHOLOGISTS
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

INFIRMARY
HOSPITAL
PSYCHOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGY

50

0
0
3
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
6.00

POSITION

*****

N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 13
1.0 0
1.0 19
1.0 0
1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 9
1.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 1
1.0 5
2.0 0

CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,M-F

Y
Y

7.0
1.0

0 34.72
0 2.36
37.08

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F

N 1.0
N 1.0
Y 12.1)
Y 2.0

0 1.00
0 1.00
0 59.52
0 2.36
63.88

DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0

0 1.65
0 13.23
0 1.18
0 1.18
0 2.36
0 1.18
20.79

CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y

1.0
4.0
1.0

0 4.96
0 13.23
0 1.18
19.37

1.00
1.00
4.96
1.00
3.31
4.96
1.65
4.96
4.96
1.65
4.72
1.18
2.36
37.72

TOWERS
ENTRANCE

SUBSTANCE PGM
CONTROL PGM
UNITS
TWO-DAY POSTS

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

RECEIV & DISCHARGE
ACTIVITY
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
RECREATION
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAYCEVE,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT MANAGER
MANAGER
UNIT OFFICERS
UNITS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

CUSTODY
CHIEF CORR SUPERV
CORR.SERVICES
SECURITY
CORR SERVICES
CORRIDORS
CORRIDORS
CONTROL ROOM
RECEPTION
LOBBY
CORR SERVICES
CORR SERVICES
MAIL ROOM

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PERIMETER SECURITY

TOWERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF CORR. SUPERV
CLERK
CORR SUPERV
SECURITY OFFICER
CORR SUPERV
OFFCIERS
OFFICERS
CONTROL
CONTROL
INFORMATION DESK
CORR SUPERV
CORR SUPERV
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

RECEPTION
REC AREAS
TOOL ROOM
RECREATION
VISITING
TWO-DAY POSTS

EXTERNAL AND OTHER
L

OTHER
OTHER
OTHER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

NOT DEFINED
NOT DEFINED
NOT DEFINED

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

276.84

51

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
U.S.P. MARION
POSITIONS

AREA

8.0
15.0
41.0
28.0
6.0
37.7
37.1
63.9
20.8
19.4
--

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

276.8

DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

52 9
34 6
16 3
39 7
141 23

%

2.9
5.4
14.8
10.1
2.2
13.6
13.4
23.1
7.5
7.0
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.

1
0
2
4
7

NITE
# R
1
0
12
12
25

0
0
2
2
4

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

4.90

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

161.00
0.00
161.00
178.84
17.84
1.11

52

.

1.3
2.5
6.8
4.7
1.0
6.3
6.2
10.6
3.5
3.2
46.1

EVE
# R
5
0
12
24
41

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

TOTL
# R
64
34
64
115
277

11
6
11
19
46

#

R

2
3
3
8
11

0
1
1
1
2

SUMMARY CHART
U.S.P. MARION
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE
DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

224
149
89
75
30
30
0

2683
1788
1073
894
358
358
0

123
82
49
41
16
16
0

1470
980
588
490
196
196
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

53

####B####################################################################
CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:

365
104
261
14
13
7
17
1
1
208
1.25
5.27
1.76

COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

20
FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

LOCATION

TOTL

ADMINISTRATEON

SUPERINTENDENT
ASST. SUPT.
CLERK/STENO
ASST. SUPT.
CLERK/STENO
ASST. SUPT.
CLERK/STENO
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
SUPERINTENDENT
OFFICE
SECURITY/OPERATIONS
OFFICE
ASST. SUPT. SECURITY
OFFICE
TREATMENT
ASST. SUPT. TREATMENT OFFICE

54

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 4
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 15

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00

POSITION

*****

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTANT
ACCOUNTANTS
SUPERVISOR
CLERK/TYPISTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N

1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0

9
0
0
0

1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
8.00

BUILDING & GROUNDS
BUILDING & GROUNDS
WATER TREATMENT
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
FOOD OPERATIONS
KITCHEN
POWER PLANT
POWER PLANT
BOILER
INVENTORY

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAYtEVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
*
N

1.0 11 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
0.6 2 2.00
4.3 0 15.00
1.0 1 1.00
0.6 0 2.00
0.9 0 5.00
1.0 0 1.00
38.00

DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL

N 11.0
N 2.0
N 1.0
N 1.0
* 1.4

0 11.00
0 2.00
1 1.00
0 1.00
0 5.00
20.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N

0 1.00
9 1.00
0 0.75
0 0.50
0 1.00
0 10.00
0 2.00
0 3.00
19.25

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

COUNSELORS
TYPISTS
CUSTODIAN
CLERK/TYPIST
SUPERVISORS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

SUPERINTENDENT
SUPERVISORS
OPERATOR
PLUMBERS
ELECTRICIANS
CARPENTER
CUSTODIAN
MANAGERS
COOKS
SUPERINTENDENT
SHIFT SUPERVISORS
FIREMEN
STOREKEEPER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

SHIFT

LOCATION

TREATMENT
TREATMENT
RECORDS
RECORDS
RECREATION

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PSYCHOLOGIST
NURSE RN
PHYSICIAN
DENTIST
NURSE
NURSE TECHNICIANS
X-RAY & LAB TECHNICIA
CLERK/TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TREATMENT
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL

5

5

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.9
2.0
3.0

POSITION

*****

N
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
2.0

DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 15 1.76
4.0 0 21.08
1.0 0 1.76
1.0 0 1.76
26.35

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y 5.0
Y 15.0
Y 1.0
Y 2.0
Y 2.0
Y 12.0

OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

DAY,M-F

5 1.00
5 5.27
1 5.27
3 31.62
0 2.51
45.67

PERIMETER SECURITY
TOWERS 1-4
MAIN GATE
TOWER 5

BUILDINGS 1-5
BLGD l-5,CTRL A-C
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UN
Bl,UC: DEATH ROW
Bl, A+B POD
B2-5, A-C PODS

2
1
0
0
0
0

17.57
79.05
5.27
10.54
7.03
42.16
161.62

N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 0
1.0 16
1.0 0
1.0 0
5.0 0
5.0 0
3.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0

1.00
1.76
3.51
1.76
8.78
6.27
3.76
1.25
2.51
30.61

Y

4.0

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

CORPORAL
SUPERVISOR
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F

UNIT SUPERVISION

SUPERVISORS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SECURITY
SECURITY
MASTER CONTROL
BUILDINGS 1-5 + MEDIC
SALLY PORT

PERIMETER SECURITY

SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF SECURITY OFFICE
SHIFT COMMANDER
LIEUTENANT
UNIT CONTROL ROOMS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

-LOCATION

COMMISSARY
COMPOUND
KITCHEN
MAILROOM
UTILITY
ACTIVITY
CMSY,PROP CTRL,SPLY
LAW LIBRARY
GROUNDS CREW

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORTATION

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

0

5.02
5.02
361.53

56

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
POSITIONS

AREA

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL

AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

RATE
PER
100 P.

1.9
7.0
1.9
8.0
2.2
2.2
38.0
10.5 10.6
20.0
5.5
5.6
19.3
5.3
5.3
12.6 12.7
45.7
26.4
7.3
7.3
44.7 44.9
161.6
8.5
30.6
8.5
1.4
1.4
5.0
361.5 100.0 100.4

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL

%

35
27
37
42
141

10
7
10
12
39

39,861
38,889
$ 184,723
$
97,222
$ 120,312
$ 177,610
$ 102,476
$ 628,522
$ 119,053
$
19,519
$1,528,190

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

6 2
4 1
37 10
13 4
61 17

1 0
2 1
18 5
12 3
33 9

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

5.10
231.00
26.00
257.00
269.28
12.28
1.05

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

57

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

TOTL
# R
53
39
162
108
362

15
11
45
30
**

#

R

13
1
0
0
12

4
0
0
0
3

SUMMARY CHART
VIRGINIA: MECKLENBURG C.C.
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

360
25
39
17
9
100
5
5
15
11
45
30
4
0
0
3
10
10
5

####################################
#########################
##############################I#########
#################
#########
xxxxxxxxxx
# # # # #
#####
###############
###########
##############################################
##############################
#####
#
###
##########
##########
#####

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

314
292
157
381
22
22
451

3770
3501
1885
4578
269
269
5408

108
100
54
131
8
8
0

1292
1199
646
1568
92
92
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

58

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
14
17
10
5
2
2
211
1.24
5.20
1.73

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

12

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
WARDEN
SECURITY
GRIEVANCE
OFFICE SERVICES
SWITCHBOARD
RECORDS
OFFICE SERVICES
RECORDS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- #
SPAN TOTL
.
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
EXEC ASST
SECRETARY
ASSOC WARDEN
COORDINATOR
MANAGER
OPERATOR
SECRETARY
CLERK
CLERK TYPISTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

59

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 11, 1.00
1.0
0
1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 5 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
12.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ADMINISTRATOR
ASSOC WARDEN
V&C SUPERVISOR
V&C STAFF
CLERK
INSTRUCTOR
ACCOUNTANT
CLERKS
MESSENGER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERSONNEL
FINANCE
COMMISSARY
COMMISSARY
PERSONNEL
TRAINING
FINANCE
FINANCE
GARAGE
PREVENTIVE SECURITY

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
N
N
N
N

1.0 3 1.00
1.0 2 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 2 1.00
1.0 11 1.00
1.0 8 1.00
1.0 5 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
4.0 0 4.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
3.0 0 3.00
1.0 0 5.00
1.0 0 5.00
1.0 2 1.00
1.7 2 3.00
5.2 0 18.00
1.7 0 3.00
1.0 5 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
70.00

2
3
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
14.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

ASSOC WARDEN
STORES OFFICER
STOREMEN
SUPERVISOR
COORDINATOR
SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR
PAINTER
CARPENTER
METAL WORKERS
DRIVERS
MASON
GROUNDSKEEPER
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
TECHNICIAN
PLUMBERS
ELECTRICIANS
SHIFT ENGINEERS
ASST. SHIFT ENG
SUPERVISOR
ASST SUPERVISOR
COOKS
HELPERS
SUPERVISOR
CLERK
SUPERVISOR
CLEANERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TECHNICAL SERVICES
WAREHOUSE
WAREHOUSE
E&W
PREVENTIVE MAINT
WORKS
ENGINEERING
GARAGE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
GARAGE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
LABORERS
RELIEF
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
BOILER
BOILER
FOOD SERVICE
FOOD SERVICE
FOOD SERVICE
KITCHEN
INMATE SERVICES
INMATE SERVICES
CLOTHING
CLOTHING

60

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

ASSOC WARDEN
ASSOC WARDEN
ASSOC WARDEN
ASSOC WARDEN
CLERK
SUPERVISOR
FOREMEN
CLERK
CHAPLAINS
SUPERVISOR
CLERK
CL. OFFICERS
HEAD
CLERK
INSTRUCTOR
STAFF
LIBRARIAN
SUPERVISOR
STAFF
COORDINATOR
CLERK
ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICER
SUPERVISOR
INSTRUCTORS
SUPERVISOR
TEACHER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

INDUSTRIES
SOCIALIZATION
OPER & ADMIN
EDUC & TRAINING
INDUSTRIES
IND PRODUCTION
INDUSTRIES
SOCIALIZATION
CHAPEL
CLASSIFICATION
CLASSIFICATION
CLASSIFICATION
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
ARTS & CRAFTS
SOCIAL & CULT DEV
LIBRARY
RECREATION
RECREATION
RECORDS
RECORDS
SENTENCES
ADMISSIONS
TRAINING
INMATE TRAINING
EDUCATION
EDUCATION

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 9 1.00
N 1.0 6 1.00
N 1.0 2 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 16 1.00
N 16.0 0 16.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 6 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 5.0 0 5.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
* 1.4 0 5.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 7 1.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
58.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
*
N

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PHYSICIAN
SENIOR OFFICER
CLERK
HEALTH CARE OFFICERS
PSYCHOLOGISTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
HEALTH CARE
HEALTH CARE
HEALTH CARE
SOCIALIZATION

61

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
3.0

1
2
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
3.00
13.00

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CONTROL POINTS

CLERK
CLERK
SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS
OFFICER
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

-LOCATION

AW SECURITY
AW SECURITY
DUTIES
DUTIES
DUTIES
PREVENTIVE SECURITY
U
N&T
S
J CONTROL
J CONTROL
U CORRIDOR
CAGE

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVENING,ALL

1.0
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0

1 1.00
0 1.00
68 2.00
23 2.00
15 2.00
0 1.00
0 1.73
0 10.39
0 3.46
0 5.20
0 3.46
0 2.47
0 1.73
37.45

PERIMETER SECURITY

CONTROL TOWER
TOWERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
ROVER
FOOT PATROL
FOOT PATROL
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

#1-4
MOBILE PATROL
A OUTPOST
OUTPOSTS BCD
PER. SECURITY
PERIMETER
PERIMETER

62

DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 0 1.73
4.0 0 20.78
1.0 0 5.20
1.0 0 5.20
3.0 0 15.59
1.0 0 1.73
1.0 0 1.75.
1.0 0 1.73
53.68

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

#l
U
E LIVING UNIT
E.C.A.
E CONTROL
E.C.A.
E LIVING UNIT
J LIVING UNIT
J LIVING UNIT
A LIVING UNIT
A LIVING UNIT
A CONTROL
A CONTROL
HOSPITAL

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.46
3.46
10.39
5.20
10.39
5.20
17.32
10.39
3.46
10.39
3.46
5.20
3.46
5.20
96.98

DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.73
3.46
2.47
5.20
3.46
1.73
3.46
3.46
24.99

DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL

Y
Y

4.0
1.0

0
0

6.93
1.73
8.66

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

UNIT SUPERVISION

HOSPITAL
GALLERY
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

I.D.BUILDING
N AREA
N AREA
CONSTRUCTION
TRAINING
V&C
RECREATION
N AREA

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

ESCORT
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OUTSIDE
PICKUP

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

388.77

63

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
POSITIONS

AREA

DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL

AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

3.1
3.1
12.0
14.0
3.6
3.7
18.0 18.4
70.0
14.9 15.2
58.0
3.4
13.0
9.8
37.5
13.8 14.1
53.7
97.0
24.9 25.5
25.0
6.4
6.6
8.7
2.2
2.3
388.8 190.0 102.0

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL

%

73
62
25
38
197

19
16
7
10
52

EVE
# R
7 2
3 1
20 5
23 6
53 14

NITE
# R
2
1
11
13
28

1
0
3
4
7

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

7.05

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

223.00
0.00
223.00
221.76
1.24
0.99

64

TOTL
# R
96
71
97
125
389

25
19
25
33
**

#

R

9 2
3 1
2 1
28 7
16 4

SUMMARY CHART
MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE
DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

259
314
185
92
37
37
0

3105
3770
2218
1109
444
444
0

195
237
139
70
28
28
0

2338
2839
1670
835
334
334
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

#########f################################################################

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.1,.
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
14
13
7
17
1
1
208
1.25
5.27
1.76

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

3

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
SOCIAL SERVICE

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
ADMIN. ASST.
STAFF ASST.
CLERK/STENO
DEPUTY WARDEN
DIRECTOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

66

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 10
1.0 5

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00

POSITION

*****

OFFICE HRS

N

1.0

0

1.00
1.00

LAUNDRY SERVICE
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
MAINTENANCE
FOOD SERVICE
FOOD SERVICE

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
N
N
N
N
*

1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.6

1
4
0
0
1
0

1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
11.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N

3.0 0
1.0 10
4.0 0
6.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

3.00
1.00
4.00
6.00
1.00
1.00
16.00

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

CASE MANAGERS
PRINCIPAL
TEACHERS
TEACHERS
CHAPLAIN
COORDINATOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

ACCOUNTING

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

DIRECTOR
MANAGER
OPERATORS
SUPERVISORS
DIRECTOR
SUPERVISORS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

LOCATION

CLASSIFICATION
EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
ACADEMIC EDUCATION
CHAPEL
RECREATION

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

SOCIAL WORKER
SPECIALIST
NURSE PRACTITIONER
TECHNICIAN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

CASE MANAGEMENT
MENTAL HEALTH
MEDICAL
MEDICAL

67

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

0
0
1
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00

POSITION

*****

N
*
*
Y
N
Y

1.0
1.1
0.9
2.0
1.0
1.0

1
0
9
0
0
0

1.00
6.00
5.00
7.03
1.00
1.25
21.28

#l
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
GATE

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.25
1.25
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
1.25
24.85

&
&
&
&

CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
WKND,DAYS

Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0

2
0
0
0

5.27
7.03
1.76
1.00
15.06

DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0

1.76
1.25
1.25
4.27

DAY,M-F

Y

1.0

0

1.25
1.25

TOWER
TOWER
TOWER
TOWER
TOWER
TOWER
FRONT

UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS

DINING
DINING
DINING
DINING

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

UNIT SUPERVISION

TUNNEL OFFICERS
TUNNEL OFFICERS
TUNNEL OFFICERS
TUNNEL OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
CLOCK MAN

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF CORR. OFFICER
SHIFT SUPERVISOR
OFFICER ON DUTY
DESK OFFICER
TRAINING OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

LINE SUSPENSION
LAUNDRY
VISITING ROOM

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORTATION

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

104.71

68

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C-1.
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

6.0
1.0
11.0
16.0
4.0
21.3
24.8
15.1
4.3
1.3
104.7

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

17 4
20 5
6 1
18 4
61 14

%

5.7
1.0
10.5
15.3
3.8
20.3
23.7
14.4
4.1
1.2
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.
1.4
0.2
2.6
3.8
1.0
5.1
5.9
3.6
1.0
0.3
24.9

EVE
# R
1
0
3
8
12

0
0
1
2
3

NITE
# R

TOTL
# R

0 0
0 0
1 0
6 1
7 2

18 4
20 5
15 4
52 12
105 25

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

3.74

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

58.00
0.00
58.00
66.71
8.71
1.15

69

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

#

R

1 0
2 0
0 0
11 3
1 0

SUMMARY CHART
S. CAROLINA: MANNING C.I.
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

420
25
14
3
2

25
15
4
4
5
4
12
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0

###########################################
#########################
##############
###
##
#########################
###############
####
####
######
#####
#############
#
#
###
#
#
#
#

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

78
72
39
95
6
6
0

934
867
467
1134
67
67
0

44
41
22
54
3
3
0

532
494
266
646
38
38
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

70

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
25
11
11
3
1
1
209
1.25
5.24
1.75

##########i##############################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

6

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
SUPERINTENDENT

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

SUPERINTENDENT
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

71

N
N

1.0
1.0

6
0

1.00
1.00
2.00

*****

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

HEAD ACCOUNT CLERK
ACCOUNT CLERKS
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N

1.0
4.0
1.0

5
0
0

1.00
4.00
1.00
6.00

KITCHEN
KITCHEN
MAINTENENCE
GARAGE

OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
*
N
N

1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0

1
0
1
0

1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
6.00

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

5
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

SENIOR COUNSELOR
COUNSELOR AIDE
TYPIST
TEACHER
TEACHER
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

HEAD COOK
COOKS
GEN. MECHANIC
MAINTENENCE ASST.
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

LOCATION

POSITION

CASE MANAGEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT
ACADEMIC EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
RECORDS

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT ,

CATEGORY

SUBTOTAL:

0.00

72

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

CUSTODY
CUSTODY
CONTROL CENTER

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

CONTROL POINTS

LIEUTENANT
SERGEANTS & CAPTAIN
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

N
*
Y

1.0
1.1
1.0

1
5
0

PERIMETER SECURITY

CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

DORMITORY
DORMITORY
DORMITORY

NIGHT,ALL
EVENING,ALL
WKND,DAYS

Y
Y
Y

3.0
3.0
3.0

0
0
0

5.24
5.24
1.50
11.99

EVENING,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
WKND,DAYS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0
6.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0

3.50
7.49
2.50
1.75
0.50
15.73

DAY,ALL

Y

1.0

0

1.75
1.75

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

0.00

UNIT SUPERVISION

OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

1.00
6.00
1.75
8.75

RECREATION/PROGRAMS
WORK CREWS
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
GROUNDS/HOUSEKEEPING
VISITING

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORTATION

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

73

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

2.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
12.0
15.7
1.7
58.2
DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

12 8
6 4
3 2
14 9
35 23
3.46
38.00
4.00
42.00
38.22
3.78
0.91

74

%

3.4
10.3
10.3
10.3
0.0
15.0
0.0
20.6
27.0
3.0
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

1.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
5.8
0.0
8.0
10.5
1.2
38.8

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

1
0
3
3
7

0
0
3
1
4

1
0
2
2
5

0
0
2
1
3

TOTL
# R
14 9
6 4
12 8
26 17
58 39

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

R

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0
0
0
2
4

0
0
0
1
3

SUMMARY CHART
N.Y.: CAMP GEORGETOWN
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

150
24
23
5
3
39
0
3
9
4
8
17
0
0
0

###############
########################
########################
#####
###
#######################################
###
##########
#####
########
##################

1 #
2 ##
2 ##
2 ##

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

80
35
35
10
3
3
70

955
420
420
115
38
38
836

42
18
18
5
2
2
0

500
220
220
60
20
20
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

75

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS
#########################################################################

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING

PATTERN

LISTING
.

POSITION

*****

365
104
261
15
10
6
5
2
2
221
1.18
4.96
1.65

7

LOCATION

SHIFT

AD M I N ISTR ATION
ADMINISTRATION
SUPERINTENDENT

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

ADMINISTRATION

SUPERINTENDENT
ASST. SUPT.
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

76

N
N
N

1.0 5
1.0 16
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SHIFT

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PERSONNEL OFFICER
BUSINESS MANAGER
BUSINESS MANAGER
ACCOUNTANT
ACCOUNTANT
CLERK
CLERK
CASHIER
AGENT
CLERK
ASSISTANT
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
COMMISSARY
TRUST FUND
BUSINESS OFFICE
PURCHASING
FISCAL
PERSONNEL

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1
5
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00

N
N
N
N
*
N
N
*
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0

1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
21.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

FOOD ADMINISTRATOR
CHIEF OF MECH. SERVICE
SAFETY SPEC
FOREMAN
COOK FOREMEN
MECHANIC
FOREMAN
ENGINEERS
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMEN
MANAGER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE
SAFETY
WAREHOUSE
KITCHEN
AUTOMOTIVE
ELECTRIC
BOILER
GROUNDS
PLUMBING
CONSTRUCTION
LAUNDRY

77

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

SUPERINTENDENT
RECORDS OFFICER
CHAPLAINS
PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
INSPECTOR
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
FOREMAN
CASEWORKERS
CLERKS
RECORDS SPEC
DATA COORDINATOR
TEACHER
RECREATION SPEC
COUNSELOR
TEACHER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

INDUSTRIES
RECORDS
CHAPEL
EDUCATION
ASST SUPT
INDUSTRIES
WOOD SHOP
WOOD MACHINE
CARPENTRY
UPHOLSTERY
WOODCRAFT
PAINT SHOP
UPHOLSTERY
UNITS
CLASSIFICATION
RECORDS
RECORDS
ACADEMIC
GYM & YARD
VOCATIONAL
VOCATIONAL

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 3
1.0 1
2.0 0
1.0 4
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 5
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
4.0 2
2.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS

N
*
N

1.0
0.8
1.0

1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
27.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR INFIRMARY
MEDICAL
PHYSICIANS ASST
MEDICAL
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

78

2
0
0

1.00
4.00
1.00
6.00

POSITION

FAC-

SHIFT

LOCATION

TOR

*****

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF CORR SUPERV
SUPERVISORS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

# SPAN TOTL
OF
CONTROL

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

CUSTODY
CORRECTIONS
CONTROL ROOM

N
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0

5
3
0

PERIMETER SECURITY
0.00

CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT MANAGERS
CORR COUNSELORS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

UNITS
UNITS
UNITS

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
EVENING,ALL

N
Y
Y

2.0
1.0
1.0

1
0
0

2.00
4.96
1.65
8.61

DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL

Y
Y
Y

2.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0

3.31
1.65
1.65
6.61

N

1.0

0

1.00
1.00

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

1.00
4.96
4.96
10.92

REC & DISCHARGE
VISITING
MAIL ROOM

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OTHER POSTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

UNSPECIFIED

OFFICE

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

HRS

95.15

79

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

3.0
11.0
21.0
27.0
6.0
10.9
0.0
8.6
6.6
1.0
95.1
DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

28 8
30 8
3 1
8 2
69 18

%

3.2
11.6
22.1
28.4
6.3
11.5
0.0
9.1
7.0
1.1
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

0.8
2.9
5.6
7.2
1.6
2.9
0.0
2.3
1.8
0.3
25.4

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

2
1
2
2
7

1
1
1
2
5

1
0
1
1
2

0
0
0
1
1

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

3.24

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

28.00
0.00
28.00
27.15
0.85
0.97

80

TOTL
# R
35 9
33 9
9 2
19 5
95 25
#

R

2
4
12
4
5

1
1
3
1
1

SUMMARY CHART
F.P.C. ALLENWOOD
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

370
18
18
2

#####################################
##################
##################
##
##########################

25
0
3 ###
9 #########
9 #########
2 ##
5 #####
1 #
1 #
3 ###
1 #
1 #
1#
1 #
0 #

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

34
23
14
11
5
5
0

407
271
163
136
54
54
0

85
57
34
28
11
11
0

1020
680
408
340
136
136
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

81

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
15
10
8
3
2
2
221
1.18
4.96
1.65

11

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
SUPT.
ADM ASST
OPERATIONS
A.S.OPERATIONS
A.S.OPERATIONS
INVESTIGATOR
PROGRAMS
A.S.PROGRAMS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

SUPERINTENDENT
ADM. ASST.
CLERK STENO
ASST. SUPT.
SECRETARY
INVESTIGATOR
CLERK
ASST. SUPT.
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

82

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 6
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 8
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 12
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

SECRETARY
PERSONNEL REP.
CLERK
BUSINESSADMINISTRATO
BUSINESSMANAGER
CLERK
CLERKS
ACCOUNTANT
ACCOUNT CLERKS
ACCOUNT CLERK
CLERK
CASHIER
SUPERVISOR
SUPPLY STAFF
CLERK
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

SUPT.
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
TRUST FUND
TRUST FUND
BUSINESS OFFICE
COMMISSARY
COMMISSARY
SERVICE CENTER
SERVICE CENTER

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N

1.0 3 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
1.0 9 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
8.0 1 8.00
6.0 0 6.00
1.0 4 1.00
1.0 2 3.31
1.0 0 4.96
1.0 2 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 12 1.00
2.0 0 3.31
1.0 0 1.65
2.0 0 3.31
2.0 0 3.31
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
46.84

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

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
19.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

SUPPLY SUPERV.
SUPPLY STAFF
SUPERVISOR
CLERK
SUPERVISORS
ASSISTANTS
SUPERVISOR
ENGINEER
ENGINEERS
ENGINEER
OPERATORS
MANAGER
COOKS
COOKS
COOKS
COOKS
MANAGER
VEHICLE REPAIR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

STORES
STORES
MAINTENANCE
SUPERVISOR
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
UTILITIES
BOILERS
BOILERS
WATER & SEWER
WATER & SEWER
FOOD SERVICE
EARLY AM
A.M.
LATE AM
EVENING
LAUNDRY
AGRICULTURE

83

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
NIGHT,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

SUPERVISOR
CLERKS
SUPERVISOR
COUNSELORS
SUPERVISOR
CLERKS
COORDINATOR
COUNSELOR
CLERK
SUPERVISOR
STAFF
CHAPLAIN
LIBRARIANS
SUPERVISOR
FOREMEN
DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATORS
TEACHERS
COUNSELORS
CLERKS
VOCED
TEACHERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

CLINICAL SERVICES
CLINICAL SERVICES
CASEWORK
CASEWORK
RECORDS
RECORDS
VOLUNTEERS
RELEASE PREP
RELEASE PREP
ACTIVITY
RECREATION
CHAPEL
LIBRARY
AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE
C. EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
EVENING
EVENING

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F

N 1.0 6 1.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
N 1.0 9 1.00
N 9.0 0 9.00
N 1.0 4 1.00
N 4.0 0 4.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 1 1.00
N 1.0 0 1.00
N 1.0 3 1.00
N 3.0 1 3.00
N 2.0 0 2.00
Y 2.0 0 6.61
N 1.0 4 1.00
N 3.0 0 3.00
N 1.0 6 1.00
N 6.0 10 6.00
N 29.0 0 29.00
N 6.0 0 6.00
N 7.0 0 7.00
N 4.5 0 4.50
N 14.0 0 14.00
105.11

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PHYSICIAN
ADMINISTRATOR
CLERK
PHYSICIAN
DENTIST
OPTOMETRIST
PHARMACIST
MED TECH
CLERK
HEAD NURSE
NURSES/TECHS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
AMBULANCE
AMBULANCE
INFIRMARY
INFIRMARY

84

0.5 14
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 5
1.0 0

0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.96
14.46

POSITION

*****

SECURITY
SECURITY
SECURITY
ALL SHIFTS
ASSIGN/ADJUST
ASSIGN/ADJUST
MAIL ROOM
ZONES l-3
ZONES 4&5
ADM BLDG
CONTROL ROOM
MAIL ROOM

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL

N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 11 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 12 4.96
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 2 14.88
2.0 2 6.61
1.0 3 3.31
1.0 0 4.96
2.0 0 3.31
44.03

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y

1.0
1.0

0
0

4.96
4.96
9.92

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
l.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

2
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
0
0
0

4.96
9.92
4.96
14.88
4.96
14.88
4.96
14.88
4.96
14.88
4.96
9.92
4.96
4.96
9.92
3.31
3.31
135.58

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PERIMETER SECURITY

PATROL#l
INFORMATION
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF
CLERK
TRAINING OFFICER
CAPTAINS
CAPTAIN
CLERK
OFFICER
LIEUTENANTS
LIEUTENANTS
SERGEANT
SECURITY
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

OUTSIDE
ENTRANCE BLDG

UNIT SUPERVISION

SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANTS
OFFICERS
SERGEANT
SERGEANT
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
MEAL RELIEF
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

UNIT 1
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 4
UNIT 5
UNIT 5
UNIT 6
UNIT 6
BLDG19,3FL
BLDG19,lFL
BLDG19,2&3
BLDG19,lFL
BLGD19,lFL

85

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
SERGEANT
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

RECREATION
IDENTIFICATION
LOBBY DESK
VISITING
TELEPHONE
MEAL RELIEF
TOWN SQUARE
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
VOCATIONAL
ROUSTABOUTS
LOCKSMITH
ROAD GANG
TELEPHONE
YARD
LIBRARY
LAUNDROMAT
LAKE
SWIMMING
PICNIC AREA
COMMISSARY

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,M-F
WKND,DAYS
DAY&EVE,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
EVE,M-F

N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4.00
1.00
3.31
3.31
1.65
4.96
3.31
4.72
0.47
2.36
1.18
1.00
1.18
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
1.18
36.94

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N

1.0
1.0

1
0

1.00
1.00
2.00

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

LIEUTENANT
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORT

TOTAL. STAFF COUNT:

422.88

86

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

9.0
19.0
46.8
105.1
14.5
44.0
9.9
135.6
36.9
2.0
422.9

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

%

2.1
4.5
11.1
24.9
3.4
10.4
2.3
32.1
8.7
0.5
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.
1.6
3.3
8.1
18.1
2.5
7.6
1.7
23.4
6.4
0.3
72.9

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

60 10
93 16
28 5
43 7
224 39

4 1
22 4
28 5
19 3
73 13

3 1
1 0
26 4
8 1
38 7

4.14

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS
MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

238.00
0.00
238.00
228.47
9.53
0.96

87

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

TOTL
# R
75
120
136
93
423

13
21
23
16
73

#

R

10 2
0 0
4 1
61 11
30 5

SUMMARY CHART
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

580
18
39
13
7
73
0
4
13
21
23
16
2
0
11
5
5
5
4

XXXXX
##################
#######################################
#############
#######
xxxxxxx
####
############I#
######################
#######################
#################
##
###########
#####
#####
#####
####

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

286
190
152
57
38
38
0

3427
2285
1828
685
457
457
0

243
162
130
49
32
32
0

2916
1944
1555
583
389
389
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

88

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
22
11
6
5
1
1
215
1.21
5.10
1.70

5

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDENS
RESEARCH
RESEARCH
ASSOC WARDENS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
ASSOCIATE WARDEN
ASSOCIATE WARDEN
RESEARCH ANALYST
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
RESEARCH ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

89

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 4
1.0 10
1.0 13
1.0 2
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 5

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PERSONNEL OFFICER
BUSINESS MANAGER
COORDINATOR
PERSONNEL MANAGER
SECRETARIES
ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE
SUPERVISOR
ACCOUNTANTS
PURCHASING AGENTS
STOREKEEPER
SUPPLY CLERKS
RELIEF CLERK
CLERKS
OFFICE MANAGER
ACCOUNTANT
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
STAFF TRAINING
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
BUSINESS OFFICE
ACCOUNTING
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
TRUST FUND
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2
1
0
2
0
3
4
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
21.00

N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
*
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.0
1.0
2.4
1.0

3
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
0
2
0
2

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
9.00
1.00
8.00
1.00
31.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

FACILITY MANAGER
MANAGER
ADMINISTRATOR
SECRETARY
CHIEF
FOREMEN
OPERATORS
GENERAL FOREMEN
FOREMEN
ASST. ADMINISTRATOR
COOK FOREMEN
GENERAL FOREMAN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MAINTENANCE
SAFETY
FOOD SERVICE
FACILITY MANAGER
UTILITIES
UTILITY MAINTENANCE
BOILER SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENENCE
FOOD SERVICE
'KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE

90

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

COORDINATOR
SUPERVISOR
PROGRAM OFFICER
PRINCIPAL
SUPERVISOR
CHAPLAIN
COORDINATOR
SECRETARY
COORDINATOR
TEACHER
TEACHERS
RECREATION SPECIALIST
PUBLICATION MANAGER
INDUSTRY MANAGER
PRINTING MANAGER
MANAGER
DUPL EQUIP OPERATOR
CLERK
RECORDS CLERKS
CASE MANAGERS
CLERKS
CASE MANAGER
CLERKS
CASE MANAGERS
CLERKS
CASE MANAGERS
CLERKS
CASE MANAGERS
CLERKS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

CASE MANAGEMENT
RECORDS
COMMUNITY SERVICES
EDUCATION
INDUSTRIES
CHAPEL
WORK RELEASE
EDUCATION
LEARNING CENTER
LEARNING CENTER
EDUCATION
RECREATION
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES
SIGN FACTORY
INDUSTRIES
CASE MANAGEMENT
RECORDS
CHSU UNIT
CHSU UNIT
DRUG ABUSE UNIT
DRUG ABUSE UNIT
NARA UNIT
NARA UNIT
STAR UNIT
STAR UNIT
WOMEN'S UNIT
WOMEN'S UNIT

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 1 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 13 1.00
1.0 5 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
9.0 0 9.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 1 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
3.0 0 3.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
51.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N

1.0 3
1.0 5
1.0 1
1.0 0
2.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 13
1.6 0
2.0 0
3.0 0

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

CHIEF PSYCHOLOGIST
MEDICAL OFFICER
ADMINISTRATOR
PHARMACIST
PHYSICIANS
DENTISTS
DENTAL TECH
SUPERVISOR
NURSES/MED TECHNICIAN
CLERKS
PSYCHOLOGISTS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PSYCHOLOGY
MEDICAL
HOSPITAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
NURSES/MEDTECHS
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
PSYCHOLOGY

91

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
8.00
2.00
3.00
23.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

SECURITY
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS
SECURITY
CONTROL ROOM
LOBBY
SECURITY
SECURITY

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
*
Y
Y
N

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF SUPERVISOR
CLERK
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS
OFFICER
OFFICER
SECURITY OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

N

1.0 2 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.4 10 7.00
1.0 0 5.10
1.0 0 3.40
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
19.50

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
I

PATROL
ENTRANCE
ENTRANCE

92

2.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0

6.80
1.21
1.21
9.23

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM
NARA UNIT
STAR UNIT
WOMEN'S UNIT
CHSU UNIT
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
WKND,DAYS

N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 4 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 3 1.00
1.0 5 1.00
1.0 4 1.00
5.0 0 25.49
1.0 0 3.40
1.0 0 1.21
1.0 0 0.49
35.59

DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
WKND,DAYS
WKND,DAYS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
WKND,DAYS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

3.40
3.40
6.80
1.21
2.43
1.21
0.49
0.49
1.21
1.21
0.49
22.34

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
N

1.0 0
2.0 0
2.0 0

3.40
2.43
2.00
7.83

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT MANAGER
UNIT MANAGER
UNIT MANAGER
UNIT MANAGER
UNIT MANAGER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

VISITING ROOM
ACTIVITY AREAS
YARD
MAIL ROOM
RECEIVING & DISCHARGE
EDUCATION
YARD
VISITING
MAIL ROOM
CLOTHING ROOM
YARD PATROL

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OTHER
POSTS
BUS
EXECUTIVE RELIEF

229.48

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

93

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

9.0
21.0
31.0
51.0
23.0
19.5
9.2
35.6
22.3
7.8
229.5

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R
51 9
68 12
13 2
30 5
162 29

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

RATE
PER
100 P.

%

3.9
9.2
13.5
22.2
10.0
8.5
4.0
15.5
9.7
3.4
100.0

32,655
65,044
96,018
157,964
91,593
48,313
22,861
88,192
55,348
19,394
677,382

5.5
9.0
4.1
3.5
1.6
6.3
4.0
1.4
40.6

EVE
# R
3
2
6
9
20

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

1
0
1
2
4

NITE
# R
1
2
5
2
10

0
0
1
0
2

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

3.87

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

100.00
8.00
100.00
94.48
5.52
0.94

94

TOTL
# R
61
74
36
59
229

11
13
6
10
41

#

R

15 3
4 1
8 1
14 2
19 3

SUMMARY CHART
F.C.I. FORT WORTH
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

560
21
29
4
2
41
0
4
11
13
6
10
3
1
1
2

3
2

1
1

XXXXX
#####################
#############################
####
##
##############I##########################
####
###########
#############
######
##########
###
#
#
##
###
##
#
#

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH 61 YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

173
87
47
39
8
8
0

2079
1039
567
472
94
94
0

248
124
68
56
11
11
0

2970
1485
810
675
135
135
0

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

95

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
10
11
12
7
1
3
217
1.20
5.05
1.68

13

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

COMMISSIONER
DPTY. COMMISSIONER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
PLAN & RESEARCH DIR.
SECRETARY
TYPIST
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

96

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

3
6
1
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00

POSITION

*****

N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0

2
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
QFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
Y
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

4
1
0
5
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.05
1.00
1.00
11.05

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS,
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

5
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00

PROGRAMS

OFFICE HRS

N

1.0

2

1.00
1.00

CONTROL CTR
CONTROL CTR
CONTROL CTR
FRONT DESK

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

N
N
Y
Y

1.0 7
1.0 16
1.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
5.05
5.05
12.10

NIGHT,ALL
EVENING,ALL

Y
Y

1.0
1.0

SUPPORT
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
BOILER
BOILER
WAREHOUSE
ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
PROGRAM/INTAKE
GYMNASIUM
GYMNASIUM
PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
INTAKE

CONTROL POINTS

CUSTODY DIR.
SUPPORT SUPERV
CONTROL CTR
FRONT DESK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PSYCHOLOGIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

PROGRAM DIRECTOR
RELEASE DIRECTOR
EDUCATION DIRECTOR
COUNSELORS
REC. SUPERV.
REC. LEADERS
CLERICAL AIDE
TYPIST
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

SUPPORT DIRECTOR
MAINT. LT.
MAINT. OFFICER
PLANT SUPERV.
PLANT OPERATORS
STOREKEEPER
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTANT
ACCOUNT CLERK
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERIMETER SECURITY

PATROL
PATROL
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PERIMETER
PERIMETER

97

0
0

1.68
1.68
3.37

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT SUPERV.
WEST WING SUPV
A FLAGGING
F FLAGGING
GALLERIES
GALLERIES
EAST WING SUPV
R-S GALLERIES
R-S GALLERIES
Y DESK
WOMEN'S WING DESK
M-N GALLERIES
M-N GALLERIES
PQWX GALLERIES
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

UNITS
WEST WING
WEST WING
WEST WING
WEST WING
WEST WING
EAST WING
EAST WING
EAST WING
EAST WING
WOMEN'S WING
WOMEN'S WING
WOMEN'S WING
SPEC. HOUSING

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

4
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

5.05
5.05
3.37
3.37
5.05
1.68
5.05
5.05
1.68
3.37
5.05
3.37
1.68
5.05
53.88

DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y

1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 12
1.0 0
1.0 0
2.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.37
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.37
14.74

DAY&EVE,M-F

N

1.0

0

1.00
1.00

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

BOOKING
IDENTIFICATION
PACKAGES
SEARCH/VISIT
CUST.SERV.SUPV
FARM SUPERV
LAUNDRY
GROUNDS
'FOOD SERV.
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

INTAKE
INTAKE
FRONT DESK
VISITING
ADMINISTRATION
FARM
LAUNDRY
GROUNDS
KITCHEN

***** EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TRANSPORT
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

INTAKE

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

118.14

98

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

7.0
3.0
11.1
11.0
1.0
12.1
3.4
53.9
14.7
1.0
118.1

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

%

5.9
2.5
9.4
9.3
0.8
10.2
2.9
45.6
12.5
0.8
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

17 11
12 8
14 9
15 9
58 36

1 1
0 0
11 7
6 4
18 11

4.10
86.00
0.00
86.00
85.09
0.91
0.99

99

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

4.4
1.9
6.9
6.9
0.6
7.6
2.1
33.7
9.2
0.6
73.8
NITE
# R
1
0
7
3
11

1
0
4
2
7

TOTL
# R
21
12
54
31
118

13
8
34
20
74

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

R

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0 0
1 1
0 0
1 1
8 5

SUMMARY CHART
ONONDAGA COUNTY CORRECTIONS FACILITY
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

160
20
36
11
7
74
0
4
13
8
34
20
0
l
0

################
####################
####################################
###########
########
xxxxxxx
####
##############
########
########################+I#########
##################+I#
#

9 ##########
7 #######
4 ####

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

71
78
85
50
7
21
0

851
936
1021
596
85
255
0

28
30
33
19
3
8
0

331
364
397
231
33
99
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

100

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT .
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS
########################################################################
CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
20
12
9
5
1
1
213
1.23
5.15
1.72

#########################################################################
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

19

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSIONER
ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
PENITENTIARY
PENITENTIARY
ASSOC WARDEN
JAIL
JAIL
ASSOC WARDEN
GENERAL
WOMEN'S UNIT

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

A: COMMISSIONER
A: SPECIAL ASSISTANT
A: SECRETARY
A: WARDEN
A: SECRETARY
P: ASSOC. WARDEN
P: SNR. ASST. WARDEN
P: SECRETARY
J: ASSOC. WARDEN
J: SR. ASST. WARDEN
J: SR. TYPIST
J: TYPIST
W: CAPTAIN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

101

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

3
1
0
4
0
2
7
0
2
3
0
0
1

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
13.00

POSITION

*****

ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE

HRS

N

1.0

0

1.00
1.00

FOOD SERVICE
PENITENTIARY
PENITENTIARY
PENITENTIARY
WAREHOUSE
JAIL

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

N
N
*
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

1
2
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
7.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
13.00

INTAKE

DAY,M-F

N

1.0

0

1.00
1.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

0.00

CONTROL POINTS

P: CAPTAIN
P: CAPTAIN
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
J: CAPTAIN,
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
W: SERGEANT
W: OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

TOTL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

P: CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

P: MANAGER
P: SENIOR COOK
P: COOKS
P: MAINTENANCE MAN
P: STOREKEEPER
J: MAINTENANCE MAN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

A: TRAINING OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

-LOCATION

TOUR SUPERVISOR
POST 1
WEST CONTROL
CONTROL CENTER
RECORDS/FRONT OFFICE
TOUR SUPERVISOR
G-CONTROL
CONTROL CENTER
SEARCH
SEARCH
TOUR SUPERVISORS
CENTRAL CONTROL

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAYtEVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

* 0.9 10 3.00
* 0.8 0 4.00
Y 1.0 0 3.43
y , 1.0 0 3.43
Y 2.0 0 6.86
* 1.0 13 5.00
Y 3.0 0 15.44
Y 1.0 0 5.15
Y 1.0 0 5.15
Y 1.0 0 3.43
* 1.0 6 5.00
Y 1.0 0 5.15
65.03

PERIMETER SECURITY
0.00

CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

102

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

UNIT SUPERVISOR
A BLOCK
A BLOCK
B BLOCK
B BLOCK
D BLOCK
D BLOCK
F UNIT
F UNIT
C BLOCK
C BLOCK
UNIT FLOATER
UNIT SUPERVISOR
CENTER
EAST
WEST
EAST & WEST
G-BLOCK
MEDICAL UNIT
EAST BLOCK l&2
WEST BLOCK l&2

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
NIGHT,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 9 5.00
1.0 0 5.15
1.0 0 3.43
1.0 0 5.15
1.0 0 3.43
1.0 0 5.15
2.0 0 6.86
1.0 0 5.15
1.0 0 3.43
2.0 0 3.43
1.0 0 1.72
1.0 0 1.72
1.0 10 5.00
3.0 0 15.44
3.0 0 10.29
4.0 0 13.72
3.0 0 5.15
1.0 0 3.43
2.0 0 10.29
2.0 0 10.29
2.0 0 10.29
133.52

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.43
3.43
1.23
3.43
2.45
5.15
3.43
6.86
1.23
3.43
1.00
2.45
3.43
1.23
42.17

OFFICE

Y

1.0

0

1.23
1.23

*

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

P: OFFICER
P: OFFICER
P: OFFICER
P: OFFICER
P: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
J: OFFICER
W: OFFICERS
W: OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

UNIT SUPERVISION

P: SERGEANT
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICERS
P: OFFICER
J: SERGEANT
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICERS
J: OFFICER
W: OFFICERS
W: OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

IDENTIFICATION
KITCHEN
COMMISSARY
RECREATION
CLOTHING/TAILOR
BOOKING
BOOKING
RECREATION
COMMISSARY
KITCHEN
SUPPLY
IDENTIFICATION
KITCHEN/MEAL RELIEF
COMMISSARY

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

P: OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

TRANSPORT

HRS

269.94

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

103

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

13.0
1.0
13.0
1.0
0.0
65.0
0.0
133.5
42.2
1.2
269.9
DAY
# R

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

4.56
254.00
1.00
255.00
241.95
13.05
0.95

4.8
0.4
4.8
0.4
0.0
24.1
0.0
49.5
15.6
0.5
100.0

2
0
33
24
59

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

2.1
0.2
2.1
0.2
0.0
10.3
0.0
21.2
6.7
0.2
42.8

EVE
# R

22 3
1 0
28 4
33 5
84 13

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL

RATE
PER
100 P.

%

0
0
5
4
9

NITE
# R
0
0
17
10
27

0
0
3
2
4

TOTL
# R
27 4
1 0
134 21
108 17
270 43

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 1

104

R

SUMMARY CHART
NY: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CORRECTIONS
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

630 XXXXXX
22 #######################
13 #############
9 ##########
4 ####
43 #############################I##############

4 ####
0 #

21 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
17 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
0
0
0
0

4

####

5 #####
3 ###

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

403
242
181
101
20
20
18

4839
2903
2178
1210
242
242
213

47
28
21
12
2
2
0

560
336
252
140
28
28
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

105

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
NYC : BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:

365
104
261
27
0
6
6
2
20
200
1.31
5.48
1.83

COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

#########################################################################

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

16

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
SECURITY
COURT DIVISION
PROGRAMS
ENVIRONMENT
TOUR COMMAND
INVESTIGATIONS

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
ASST. DPTY WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
ASST DEPUTY WARDEN
ASST DEPUTY WARDENS
CAPTAIN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

106

N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0

3
6
3
0
4
0
1
2

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
8.00
1.00
15.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

CAPTAIN
CAPTAIN
ADM. ASSISTANT
CLERK SUPERVISOR
OFFICE AIDES
OFFICE ASSOCIATE
TRANSCRIBER
MANAGER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERSONNEL
GENERAL OFFICE
GENERAL OFFICE
GENERAL OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE .
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
COMMISSARY

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 6
1.0 15
1.0 0
1.0 2
2.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00

N
N
N
*
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
N
N

1.0 1
1.0 12
1.0 2
0.8 0
2.0 0
1.0 0
0.8 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 1
1.0 0
1.0 1
0.5 1
1.6 0
1.0 0
0.9 0
2.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
6.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
34.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

CAPTAIN
CAPTAIN
CAPTAIN
OPERATORS
OFFICE ASSISTANTS
ELECTRICIAN
STAFF
PLUMBER
PLUMBER'S HELPER
EXTERMINATOR
RODENT CONTROL AIDE
MANAGER
CHIEF COOK
COOKS
MEAT CUTTER
ENGINEERS
AIDE
LOCKSMITH
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

FOOD SERVICE
MAINTENANCE
SANITATION
ELEVATOR
GENERAL OFFICE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
SANITATION
SANITATION
FOOD SERVICE
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
BOILER
WAREHOUSE
MAINTENANCE

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

107

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

CAPTAINS
ADM. ASSISTANT
LEGAL COORDINATOR
DOCCS STAFF
DIRECTOR
CHAPLAIN
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

VISITS C PGRMS
SOCIAL SERVICE
LAW LIBRARY
SOCIAL SERVICE
RECREATION
CHAPEL

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS

2.0 19 2.00
1.0 0 1.00
2.0 0 2.00
2.0 0 2.00
0.8 0 3.00
2.0 0 2.00
12.00

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
0.00

CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

CONTROL POINTS

CAPTAINS
CAPTAIN
CAPTAIN
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

HOUSE #l&2
SECURITY
CONTROL ROOM
MAIN GATE
MAIN CORRIDOR
CONTROL ROOM
SECURITY AREAS
VISIT CONTROL
ELECTRONIC INSPECTION
2ND FL CONTROL
VISIT SEARCH

CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
EVE,M-F
DAY,ALL
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F

Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0 13 10.96
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 0 5.48
1.0 0 5.48
1.0 0 1.31
1.0 0 1.83
2.0 0 2.61
2.0 0 2.61
1.0 0 1.31
2.0 0 2.61
36.19

DAY&EVE,ALL
NIGHT,ALL

Y
Y

1.4
1.0

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OUTSIDE PATROL
OUTSIDE PATROL

108

0
0

5.12
1.83
6.94

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN
OF
TOR
CONTROL

TOTL

ONE NORTH
Two, S&W
THREE,N,S,W-A
THREE, W-B
FOUR, N,S,W-A
FOUR, W-B
FIVE, N,S,W-A
FIVE, W-B
SIX, S&W
SIX, WEST-B

5.48
10.96
16.44
3.65
16.44
3.65
16.44
3.65
5.48
3.65
85.87

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

2.0
2.0
1.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.6
1.2
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.5
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0

0 2.61
0 2.61
0 5.48
0 1.83
0 2.61
0 2.61
0 10.96
0 2.61
0 4.70
0 1.57
0 3.92
0 1.31
0 5.48
0 1.31
0 1.31
0 1.31
0 1.31
0 2.61
0 1.31
0 12.79
0 1.57
0 1.31
0 2.61
0 1.31
0 1.31
0 2.61
80.91

OFFICE HRS
EVE,M-F
EVE,M-F

Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

UNIT SUPERVISION

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

CLINIC
CHAPEL & ESCORT
DESK: RECEIVING ROOM
CARDS: REC. ROOM
CARDS: REC. ROOM
N & S YARD
GENERAL OFFICE
CASHIERS OFFICE
MAIL & PACKAGE ROOMS
COUNSEL AREA
DW PERSONNEL
WARDEN'S OFFICE
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
STOREROOM
COMMISSARY
MAINTENANCE GANG
LAUNDRY
SANITATION GANG
RECREATION
LAW LIBRARY
METAL DETECTOR LOCKER
2ND FL WAIT, IN&OUT
INMATE REGISTRATION
ELEVATOR
VISIT SUPERVISION

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

INST. VEHICLE
WRITS/TRANSFERS
CAP PGRM ESCORT

1.31
1.31
1.31
3.92
283.83

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

15.0
9.0

34.0
12.0
0.0

36.2
80.9
3.9

283.8

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
T O T A L
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHURIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

%

5.3
3.2
12.0
4.2
0.0
12.8
2.4
30.3
28.5
1.4
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

37 8
10 2
17 3
41 8
105 21

6 1
1 0
17 3
34 7
58 12

4.78
204.00
12.00
216.00
213.83
2.17
0.99

110

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

3.0
1.8
6.9
2.4
0.0
7.3
1.4
17.3
16.3
0.8
57.3
NITE
# R
2
0
13
9
24

0
0
3
2
5

TOTL
# R
58
12
86
128
284

12
2
17
26
57

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

R

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
1

SUMMARY CHART
NYC: BRONX HOUSE OF DETENTION
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

490
30
21
12
5
57
5
12
2
17
26
0
0
0
1
3
3
3

#################################################
##############################
#####################
############
######
xxxxx
#####
############
##
#################
##########################

#
###
###
###

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

481
0
107
107

5773

158

0
1283
1283

0

1890
0

0

0

36
356
200

428
4277
2400

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

111

35
35
12
117

420
420
140
1400

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
MCC: NEW YORK
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
22
11
6
5
1
1
215
1.21
5.10
1.70

1

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
WARDEN
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
WARDEN
ASSOC WARDENS
ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
ASSOCIATE WARDEN
ASSOCIATE WARDEN
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
STATISTICAL ANALYST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

112

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0 6
1.0 10
1.0 6
1.0 0
1.0 6
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
8.00

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS MANAGER
ASST. BUSINESS MANAGE
PURCHASING AGENT
ACCOUNT CLERKS
TRUST FUND CLERKS
RELIEF CLERK
PERSONNEL OFFICER
SPECIALISTS
CLERK
SPECIALIST
MANAGER
MAIL CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
TRAINING
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1
9
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
16.00

N
N
N
N
*
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
6.0

1
1
0
0
0
6
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
6.00
17.00

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

ADMINISTRATOR
FACILITIES MANAGER
MANAGER
WAREHOUSE FOREMEN
COOKS
GENERAL FOREMAN
SKILLED TRADES
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

FOOD SERVICES
MAINTENANCE
SAFETY
WAREHOUSE
KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE

113

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

POSITION

*****

SHIFT

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

FOREMAN
DIRECTOR
CHAPLAIN
COORDINATOR
PROGRAM SPECIALISTS
ADMINISTRATIVE ASST
RECORDS CLERK
CLERK
COUNSELOR AIDE
COORDINATOR
SUPERVISOR
RECORDS TECHNICIANS
CASE MANAGERS
CLERKS
R&D OFFICER
R&D OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

BRUSH FACTORY
EDUCATION
CHAPEL
CASE MANAGEMENT
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
COMMUNITY TREATMENT
POPULATION MVT
RECORDS
RECORDS
UNITS
UNITS
RECEIVING & DISCHARGE
RECEIVING & DISCHARGE

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N

N

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0

2.00

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
4
5

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.0
1.0

0
0

1.00
1.70

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.0
2.0

0
0
4
0
0
2

0

1.00
1.00
l.00
1.00
8.00
1.00

1.0

0

1.00
16.00

2.0

5.0
3.0
3.0

0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

5.00
3.00
3.00
25.70

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

MEDICAL OFFICER
PSYCHIATRIST
ADMINISTRATOR
PSYCHOLOGIST
PHYSICIAN'S ASST
LAB TECHNICIAN
LABTECH ASST
CLERK
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

MEDICAL
MEDICAL
HOSPITAL
PSYCHOLOGY
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL
MEDICAL

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

114

N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N

2.00

POSITION

*****

N
*
Y
Y
N

1.0 1 1.00
1.4 15 7.00
3.0 0 15.30
1.0 0 3.40
1.0 0 1.00
27.69

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
EVE,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL

N
Y
Y

5.0
8.0
2.0

1 5.00
0 40.79
0 6.80
52.59

DAY,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
WKND,DAYS

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0
0
0
0
0

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F

Y
Y
N

3.0
2.0
2.0

0 10.20
0 2.43
0 2.00
14.63

LOBBY
PATROL
PATROL
ENTRANCE

5.10
5.10
1.21
1.21
12.63

UNITS
UNITS
UNITS

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F

UNIT SUPERVISION

UNIT MANAGERS
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SECURITY
SECURITY
CONTROL ROOMS
SECURITY
SECURITY

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

*****

SHIFT

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF CORRECTIONAL SU
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVIS
OFFICERS
CLERKS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

RECREATION
VISITING ROOM
MAIL ROOM
CLOTHING ROOM
YARD PATROL

1.70
3.40
1.21
1.21
0.49
8.01

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

OTHER POSTS
BUS
EXECUTIVE RELIEF

198.25

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
MCC: NEW YORK
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

8.0
16.0
17.0
25.7
16.0
27.7
12.6
52.6
8.0
14.6
198.2

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

37 9
35 8
15 4
23 6
110 27
4.44

94.00
0.00
94.00
115.54
21.54
1.23

%

4.0
8.1
8.6
13.0
8.1
14.0
6.4
26.5
4.0
7.4
100.0

RATE
PER
100 P.

4.1
6.7
3.0
12.6
1.9
3.5
47.7

EVE
# R
1
2
10
11
24'

0
0
2
3
6

$
NITE
# R
0
2
8
6
16

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS
MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

116

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

0
0
2
2
4

761,745
TOTL
# R
41
42
53
63
198

10
10
12
15
48

#

R

11
2
1
1
9

3
0
0
0
2

SUMMARY CHART
MCC: NEW YORK
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE
DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

212
106
58
48

152

1819
910
496

10

2542
1271
693
578
116
116

0

0

10

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

117

76

41

34
7
7
0

413
83
83
0

########################################################################

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

365
104
261
10
11
12
7
1
3
217
1.20
5.05
1.68

#######################################################################~
STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

1 4

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

3
9
1
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00

ADMINISTRATION

COMMISSIONER
DPTY. COMMISSIONER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
PLAN & RESEARCH DIR.
SECRETARY
TYPIST
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

118

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

POSITION

*****

2
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00

OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS

N
N
N
N
*
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0

4
1
0
1
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
10.00

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

5
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
12.00

PROGRAMS

OFFICE HRS

N

1.0

2

1.00
1.00

CONTROL CTR.
CONTROL CTR.
CONTROL CTR.
LOBBY
REAR CTRL CTR

DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2
8
0
0
0

3.37
5.05
1.68
3.37
3.37
16.84

NIGHT,ALL
EVENING,ALL

Y
Y

2.0
1.0

0

3.37
1.68
5.05

SUPPORT
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
BOILER
BOILER
WAREHOUSE
ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
PROGRAM/INTAKE
GYMNASIUM
GYMNASIUM
PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
INTAKE
UNITS

CONTROL POINTS

CUSTODY SUPERV.
CONTROL CTR.
CONTROL CTR.
LOBBY
REAR CONTROL
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

1.0
1.0
1.0

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

PSYCHOLOGIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

N
N
N

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

PROGRAM DIRECTOR
RELEASE DIRECTOR
EDUCATION DIRECTOR
COUNSELORS
REC. SUPERV.
REC. LEADERS
CLERICAL AIDE
TYPIST
TYPIST
CASE MANAGER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS

ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

SUPPORT DIRECTOR
MAINT. LT.
MAINT. OFFICER
PLANT SUPERV.
PLANT OPERATORS
STOREKEEPER
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ACCOUNTANT
ACCOUNT CLERK
TYPIST
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

LOCATION

PERIMETER SECURITY

PATROL
PATROL
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

PERIMETER
PERIMETER

119

0

POSITION

*****

FAC- # SPAN
TOR
OF
CONTROL

TOTL

UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT C
UNIT
UNIT C

C

DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVE,M-F

N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N

1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0

5
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.00
3.00
1.00
5.05
5.05
3.37
2.00
1.00
5.05
5.05
3.37
2.00
1.00
5.05
5.05
6.74
5.05
3.37
2.00
1.00
66.20

DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS

Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.37
3.37
1.68
1.00
1.00
6.74
5.05
2.00
2.00
26.21

DAY&EVE,ALL

Y

1.0

0

3.37
3.37

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

SEEK & SEARCH
SCHOOL/REC
BOOKING
IDENTIFICATION
MAIL INSPECT
VISITING
RECEPT/MED
WORK DETAILS
PROGRAM CO'S
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

UNIT SUPERVISION

HOUSING DIRECTOR
HOUSING MANAGERS
CLERK
SUPERV. A
OFFICERS A
OFFICERS A
CORR.COUNS A
CORR.COUNS A
SUPERV. B
OFFICERS B
OFFICERS B
C0RR.COUNS.B
C0RR.COUNS.B
SUPERV. C
MALE CO'S
MALE CO'S
FEMALE CO'S
FEMALE CO'S
C0RR.COUNS.C
C0RR.COUNS.C
CATEGORYSUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

ALL AREAS
SCHOOL/REC
INTAKE
INTAKE
MAIL
VISITATION
INTAKE
ALL AREAS
PROGRAM

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

TRANSPORTATION
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

INTAKE

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

150.67

120

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
POSITIONS

AREA

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL AND TREATMENT
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

7.0
3.0
10.0
12.0
1.0
16.8
5.1
66.2
26.2
3.4
150.7

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

DAY
# R

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

17

9

117.00
0.00
117.00
117.66
0.66
1.01

4.6
2.0
6.6
8.0
0.7
11.2
3.4
43.9
17.4
2.2
100.0

3.6
1.6
5.2
6.3
0.5
8.8
2.6
34.5
13.6
1.8
78.5

EVE
# R

NITE
# R

1

1

0

$

122,781

$

191,089

TOTL
# R
10
7
34
27
78

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

R

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0
1
0
1
9

0
1
0
1
5

121

18 9
11 6
30 16

0

$

74,740
27,344
91,146

20
13
66
51
151

13 7
18 9
71 37
3.32

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

RATE
PER
100 P.

%

7 4
4
12

2
6

SUMMARY CHART
ONONDAGA COUNTY NEW FACILITY
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

190 ###################
20 ####################
37
16
6
78

#####################################
################
######
XXXXXXXX

3
10
7
34

###
##########
#######
##################################
2 7 ###########################
0
1 #
0

5 #####
12 ############
9 #########
4 ####

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

98

1177
1294
1412

28
30
33

330
363

824

19

118
353

3
8

0

0

108

118
69
10
29
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

122

396
231
33

99
0

CORRECTIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION
STAFFING PATTERN ANALYSIS

CALCULATION OF COVERAGE FACTOR
TOTAL DAYS PER YEAR:
REGULAR DAYS OFF:
TOTAL REMAINING DAYS PER YEAR:
VACATION DAYS:
HOLIDAYS:
AVERAGE ILLNESS LEAVE TAKEN:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAINING DAYS:
AVERAGE MILITARY LEAVE TAKEN:
AVERAGE OTHER LEAVE TAKEN:
TOTAL ACTUAL DAYS AVAILABLE:
COVERAGE FACTOR:
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FACTOR:
SEVEN DAY, ONE SHIFT COVERAGE:

STAFFING PATTERN LISTING
POSITION

*****

365
104
261
27
0
6
6
2
20
200
1.31
5.48
1.83

17

LOCATION

SHIFT

ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS
OPERATIONS
WARDEN
WARDEN
ASSOC. WARDENS
ALL AREAS

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

ADMINISTRATION

WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
DEPUTY WARDEN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASST.
SECRETARY
SECRETARY
TYPING POOL
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

123

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0

4
8
4
0
0
3
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
9.00

POSITION

*****

HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS
HRS

N
N
N
N
N

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0

1
0
3
0
0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
6.00

OFFICE HRS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
OFFICE HRS

N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N

1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

7
0
4
1
0
0
0

1.00
7.31
1.00
2.61
1.00
1.00
1.00
14.92

EVE,M-F
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS

N
N
N
N
N
N
*

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.l

0
2
1
0
0
1
0

1.00
1.00
1.0,
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00
12.00

HOUSING UNITS

OFFICE HRS

N

3.0

0

3.00
3.00

SECURITY
TOUR
TOUR
CONTROL ROOM
CONTROL ROOM A
CONTROL ROOM B
SCHEDULING
VISIT PROCESSING
BRIDGE GATE

OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
EVENING,ALL
OFFICE HRS

N
*
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

1.0 1
1.1 29
3.0 4
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
4.0 0
1.0 0

1.00
6.00
5.48
5.48
5.48
3.65
1.00
7.31
1.31
36.71

CONTINUOUS

Y

1.0

FOOD SERVICE
KITCHEN
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
FIRE SAFETY

LIBRARY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
RECREATION
RECREATION
CHAPLAIN
CLASSIFICATION
INTAKE SCREENING

CONTROL POINTS

CHIEF
COMMANDER
ASST. COMMANDER
SUPERVISOR
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

MEDICAL AND TREATMENT

SOCIAL WORKERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL REPORTS
BUSINESS OFFICE
BUSINESS OFFICE
COMMISSARY
.

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

AIDE
COORDINATOR
SUPERVISOR
LEADER
COORDINATOR
SUPERVISOR
CASE
MANAGER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
TOR
OF
CONTROL

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

SUPERVISOR
COOKS
MANAGER
STAFF
PLUMBER
ELECTRICIAN
INSPECTOR
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PERSONNEL OFFICER
STAFF
BUSINESS MANAGER
CASHIER
STAFF
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

LOCATION

PERIMETER SECURITY

OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

OUTSIDE PATROL

124

0

5.48
5.48

POSITION

*****

UNIT CONTROL STATIONS
UNITS 4,7,10
UNITS 5,6,8,9,11
UNITS 5,6,8,9,11

CONTINUOUS
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,ALL

Y 8.0
Y 3.0
Y 10.0
Y 5.0

0 43.85
0 16.44
0 36.54
0 9.14
105.97

DAY,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
DAY,M-F
DAY,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
EVENING,ALL
EVENING,ALL
DAY&EVE,ALL
DAY,M-F
CONTINUOUS
DAY&EVE,M-F
DAY&EVE,ALL
OFFICE HRS
CONTINUOUS
NIGHT,ALL
EVENING,ALL
CONTINUOUS
DAY,ALL
EVENING,ALL

Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.0 0 1.83
2.0 0 2.61
1.0 0 3.65
1.0 0 1.00
1.0 2 1.00
1.0 0 1.83
1.0 0 3.65
3.0 0 3.92
1.0 0 1.83
2.0 0 7.31
1.0 8 1.83
2.0 0 3.65
1.0 0 3.65
1.0 18 1.31
3.0 0 16.44
1.0 0 2.61
1.0 0 3.65
1.0 0 1.31
1.0 0 5.48
1.0 0 1.83
1.0 0 1.83
1.0 0 5.48
3.0 0 5.48
6.0 0 10.96
94.13

EVE,M-F

Y

1.0

INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD

OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICER
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
OFFICER
SUPERVISOR
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:.
*****

FAC- # SPAN TOTL
OF
TOR
CONTROL

UNIT SUPERVISION

OFFICERS
UNIT OFFICERS
UNIT OFFICERS
PATROL OFFICERS
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:
*****

SHIFT

LOCATION

STORES/LOADING DOCK
LAUNDRY
ELEVATOR
SECURITY/TOOL CTRL
SANITATION
SANITATION DETAIL
KITCHEN
MAIL ROOM/PACKAGES
LEGAL LIBRARY
RECREATION
VISITING
VISITING ROOM
RECEPTION VISITING
RECEIVING
RECEPTION PROCESS
RECEIVING ESCORT
RECEIVING SEARCH
RECEIVING MEDICAL
CLINIC A
CLINIC PATROL
CLINIC PATROL
THIRD FLOOR
PROGRAM CENTERS
PROGRAM CENTERS

EXTERNAL AND OTHER

OFFICER
CATEGORY SUBTOTAL:

HOSPITAL TRANSFER

0

1.31
1.31
288.51

TOTAL STAFF COUNT:

125

SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF STAFFING PATTERN
NYC: MANHATTAN HOUSE OF DETENTION
AREA

POSITIONS

ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
MEDICAL
AN D
T RE A TMEN T
CONTROL POINTS
PERIMETER SECURITY
UNIT SUPERVISION
INTERNAL ACTIVITY AND YARD
EXTERNAL AND OTHER
TOTAL

9.0
6.0
14.9
12.0
3.0
36.7
5.5
106.0
94.1
1.3
288.5

STAFF SUMMARY BY SHIFT

ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
MEDICAL, PGRM, & CASE MNGT
UNIT OFFICERS
OTHER OFFICERS
TOTAL
AVE. SPAN/ SUPERV. CTRL
AUTHORIZED CO'S:
OVERTIME CO FTE:
TOTAL FTE CO'S:
TOTAL POST REQT.:
DIFFERENCE:
CONGRUENCE:

5.62
245.00
0.00
245.00
243.60
1.41
0.99

%

3.1
2.1
5.2
4.2
1.0
12.7
32.6
0.5
100.0

DAY
# R

EVE
# R

24 6
9 2
26 7
37 9
96 24

2 1
2 1
21 5
33 8
58 15

RATE
PER
100 P.

STANDARD
COST PER
100 PRIS.

2.3
1.5
3.7
3.0
0.8
9.2
1.4
26.5
23.5
0.3
72.1

46,125
26,250

NITE
# R
0
1
11
10
22

0
0
3
3
6

TOTL
# R
30 7
15 4
106 26
138 34
289 72

KEY FUNCTION POSITIONS

#

R

MEDICAL:
MENTAL HEALTH:
INDUSTRY:
EDUCATION/VOTEC:
CLERICAL:

0
3
0
2
5

0
1
0
1
1

126

SUMMARY
CHART
MANHATTAN
HOUSE
OF DETENTION
NYC:
POPULATION LEVEL
COVERAGE FACTOR
STAFF RATE/ DAY
STAFF RATE/ EVE
STAFF RATE/ NITE
STAFF RATE/ TOTL
CONGRUENCE
SPAN OF CTRL
ADM/SPT STAFF
MED/PGRM/CASE
UNIT CO'S
OTHER CO'S
MEDICAL
MENTAL HEALTH
INDUSTRY
EDUCATION/VOTEC
CLERICAL
UNIT CO'S/ DAY
UNIT CO'S/ EVE
UNIT CO'S/ NITE

400 ########################################
30 ##############################
24 ########################
15 ###############
6 ######
72 XXXXXXX
0

6
7
4
26
34

######
#######
####
##########################
##################################

1 #
0
1 #

l
7
5
3

#

#######
#####
###

DAYS, ACCRUED BY MONTH & YEAR, FOR SPECIAL FUNCTIONS
OFFICERS

ANNUAL LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
ILLNESS LEAVE
TRAINING DAYS
MILITARY LEAVE
OTHER LEAVE
CO OVERTIME

NON-OFFICERS

MONTH

YEAR

MONTH

YEAR

548
0
122
122
41
406
0

6577
0
1462
1462
487
4872
0

101
0
22
22
7
75
0

1213
0
270
270
90
898
0

NOTE: NON CO TRAINING ESTIMATED FROM CO STANDARD

127