Evaluation of Peralta Public Safety Services Chanelle Whittaker, Esq., Interim Vice-Chancellor for Human Resources & Employee Relations Bob Deis, Managing Consultant, Management Strategies, SSYW Jim Leal, Public Safety Consultant, Management Strategies, SSYW January 8, 2018 1
Background Mid December—I was requested to assist in the evaluation (costing) of options for the District Public Safety program—to present at the Board’s January 8 th meeting I am happy to assist in costing & evaluating changes to the Peralta Public Safety model However, we need to know what are the proposed changes to address what problems Tonight’s Board meeting was to discuss what to do with the ABC Security contract but this cannot be evaluated without looking at the entire Public Safety model—the pieces must complement each other December 23rd to January 1 st , I was out of the country In order to be responsive to the Board by January 8 th , I sought the assistance of the Management Strategies Group of the Sloan Sakai Yeung and Wong LLP firm, our labor counsel. 2
Management Strategies Group—SSYW LLP • Bob Deis, Managing Consultant • 34 year public servant managing cities and counties in 3 states • Last public servant role was managing the City of Stockton • Now a “troubleshooting” consultant for public agencies up/down the State • Jim Leal, Public Safety Consultant • 33 years of Public Safety service • Former Newark, CA Police Chief for 9 years • His Newark work included coordination with community college security and police • Currently interim Police Chief for Nevada City—providing employee development, strategic planning and policy development & implementation • Now consulting for Mgmt. Strategies--assisting public agencies on public safety matters e.g. strategic planning 3
My Charge to Management Strategies • Review all the written work product that has been completed to date--evaluating Peralta’s Public Safety model and options for change • Begin identifying the HR considerations in changing the model. • Provide a suggested framework (and realistic time frame) for evaluating and implementing possible improvements or restructuring • Survey and compare data with other community colleges to the extent possible during the holidays • Provide some context to the Board of Trustees on options regarding the ABC Security contract • Possibly assist in an initial contact with the Sheriff’s Office in the interest of transparency 4
Existing Safety Services • Contract with Alameda County Sheriff—providing police & some support services (expires 6/30/19) • Contract with ABC Security Services—providing non-sworn security services (expires 1/15/19) • Campus Safety Aides—District employees • Total cost of Public Safety model approximates $5 million 5
Typical Sources for Concern or Change in Public Safety Services • A major tragic event e.g. unfortunate death of Peralta Officer in 1995 • Uptick in crime without a perceived adequate response by those “responsible” • Lack of communication, data and regular engagement with all stakeholders—in this vacuum comes anecdotal information, rumors, fear, etc. • Service contracts are sometimes not well written—clearly articulating expectations and accountability • Contract management sometimes could be improved e.g. requiring monthly meetings, reports on past activities, annual reports on past year which informs annual plans, etc. • Poor contractor performance • Environmental considerations, e.g. lighting at night, campus design, poor maintenance, etc. • There is a heightened level of concern if there is crime in the general community • Cost increases without an explanation 6
Preliminary Observations & Questions from Paper Review • Evaluating options to improve the Peralta Public Safety model and outcomes will require substantial analysis of the facts with coordination between HR, General Services and a resource with extensive public safety and project management experience • Consultation/collaboration with the Sheriff and ABC is key • A multi-step methodical process—described below—will be necessary to get a full understanding and buy-in for changes 7
A Framework to Evaluate Peralta’s Public Safety Model • Step #1 will frame the problem (if there is any) or simply describe “how are we doing”--providing specifics on what areas need to change. • Step #2—develop options to address any negative findings from Step #1 • This is entirely dependent on findings from Step #1 • Any changes in the Public Safety model must be done in conjunction with the entire system in mind • If crime rates or response times are the problem—this may suggest changes in deployment or increased use of other Sheriff/ABC resources • If quality of interaction with providers is the problem—this may suggest additional training, more supervision, change in staff, more robust complaint procedure, etc. • Fully assess costs of alternatives • If perception of safety is a problem—visibility of safety resources and engagement with stakeholders needs to improve with a more robust and ongoing two-way communication strategy • If cost is a problem—alternative modes of service delivery should be examined with a realistic examination of short and long-term costs (this must satisfy service needs of Peralta) • Step #3--Implementation 8
A Framework for Review—Step #1 • Step #1—What is the problem or how are we doing? • Is it crime rates? Data should inform that potential • Is it response times? Again, call data should inform that • Is it quality of the interaction with officers, security guards or police aides? • Information on calls-for-service, reports, complaints, training and policing/security philosophy might inform you on whether and why this might be an issue • Perception of an unsafe environment? All the above, a valid survey, informal group meetings, a review of facilities (especially at night), the quality of two-way communication between stakeholders would inform you. • Is it Cost? A survey of “like” campuses will possibly inform you if that is a problem. The key is to determine what campuses (and the communities that surround them) are similar to Peralta’s 9
Activities for Step #1 • Engage and partner with the service providers e.g. ask ABC and Sheriff’s opinions on whether there is a problem & suggestions for change • Consider handing (some or all of) this assessment project to the Sheriff • Compare crime data to other campuses—community crime rates may impact campuses • Review the specifics and/or trends behind each crime • Interview stakeholders e.g. campus Presidents, administration, etc. • Review survey methods & consider redoing survey • Review outcomes from “listening sessions” and facilities review 10
Activities for Step #1 (continued) • Review call data and response times—Sheriff & ABC • Review other information captured by ABC & Sheriff • Understand what Peralta is getting from each provider e.g. service levels, minimum staffing levels, typical staffing levels • Review complaint procedures & data, training, provider philosophies, etc. • Survey public safety models, crime rates, costs and staffing levels for “like” campuses/districts--ask if they are satisfied and why • Key outcome from Step #1 is answering—How are we doing and what is the nature of the problem? The variables to report on are: crime rates, response times, quality of interactions with providers, perceptions and cost 11
Additional Questions to be Answered in Step #1 • Who is the Chief? Who does the District hold accountable and for what? How does the District communicate expectations, identify and discuss problems & solutions with providers? • Is there a clear understanding on certain expectations e.g. the role of the highly-skilled Lieutenant, accessing the Sheriff’s Office: analytical capacity and skill sets (to address the issues implied in this project), planning capacity, work plans, communication, year in review, etc. • There are basic expectations outlined in contract e.g. complying with the Clery Act, brochures on safety and crime reporting, student/faculty orientations and safety training. Are these effective? • What is the chain of command--unclear how ABC Security & Police Aides are coordinated with Sheriff? • Peralta pays $424K in FY 18-19 for indirect costs—can some of this apply towards accessing Sheriff’s analytical and problem-solving capacity? • Why does the staff report that went to the Board (approving the Sheriff contract) have different staffing and budget levels than the actual contract • It appears the Sheriff contract is buying people rather than a service level—what is the minimum and typical staff levels throughout the year? 12
Additional Questions to be Answered in Step#1 (continued) • What data does the Sheriff or ABC Security have that describes the quantity and quality of services? • It appears the ABC contract is paying for a service level—is that correct? If so, any in-house model must be comparable • Any contemplated change in the police officer (Sheriff) staffing should be grounded in the data e.g. crime rates, calls for service, desired visibility, patrol expectations, # of security officers, campus aides, etc. • Are the survey results reliable and representative of all stakeholders? • Depending upon how surveys are administered, they may produce skewed results i.e. only those that feel strongly respond • If reliable, the data suggests various concerns. Who should be addressing these? 13
Recommend
More recommend
