Evaluation of Peralta Public Safety Services Chanelle Whittaker, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 8th 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 1st, I was out of the country In order to be responsive to the Board by January 8th, 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
• utcomes 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
• f 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
• pinions 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

Additional Questions to be Answered in Step#1 (continued)

• The results from the “listening sessions” and the facility reviews

would be helpful. Were the Sheriff and ABC representatives participants in these activities?

• It appears the Sheriff and ABC were not engaged in this discussion of

evaluating: Is there a problem and what can be done to address it? Why?

• You typically get from contractors what you ask from them. Are there

regular communications with providers on expectations vs performance?

14

A Framework for Review Step #2 & #3

• Key outcome from Step #2 is answering—What are the options and short/long

term costs of addressing any issues identified in Step #1

• A recommended Public Safety model should be developed as an outcome
• Step #2 should include a realistic timeline and steps for implementation
• Steps #1 and #2 will take approximately 6 months—depending on access to people and data
• Step #3 would include actual implementation
• Factors to consider
• Changing security contractors could be a 6-9 month process (RFP & transition time)
• Changing Police contractors could be a 9-12 month process (RFP, negotiations & transition time)
• Going in-house could be 18 to 24 months (hire Police Chief, then officers, academy and FTO training,

establish labor MOU, develop policy manuals, technology, infrastructure, safety equipment and vehicle purchase, etc.)

15

Be Careful in Evaluating Costs—Especially if Moving to In-house Model

• Upfront costs can be enormous—especially if it involves moving Police

Officers and/or Campus Security to in-house model

• Upfront Costs
• Vehicles, technology, handling calls/dispatch/records management, academy training, safety

equipment, insurance coverage and project oversight

• These are managed by your contractors
• Replacement costs
• Need to gradually set aside monies for eventual replacement of vehicles, equipment &

technology

• Personnel and Liability Risks
• Liability for acts and omissions of officers and staff is potentially big and tied to a robust

training & performance management program

• Would some personnel be armed? If not, there will be pressure to do so

16

Be Careful in Evaluating Costs—Especially if Moving to In-house Model (continued)

• Personnel Costs
• Establish new classifications, pay rates, pension rates and benefits
• Extensive hiring/background process in the face of ALL agencies having difficulty recruiting qualified

personnel

• Addressing labor relation activities—possible unionization of new personnel, negotiations and associated

costs

• Pension costs can be very high and are increasing
• If Officers, must take into account experience (lateral—less expensive ST but more expensive LT) vs. new

inexperienced (more expensive ST but less expensive LT)

• If Officers, must take into account fixed staffing needs vs. what is provided by Sheriff (or other preferred

service level)

• If Security Officers, must compare higher labor costs vs. contractor (w/profit margin) costs
• If Security Officers, must take into account fixed staffing needs & compare to what is provided by ABC (or
• ther preferred service level)
• Workers compensation (4850)—this should be compared to what your contractors are charging the

District

17

External Comparison

• How other districts provide public safety services will inform our options &

choices

• Please note the separate report “Campus Safety Study” completed by

District HR

• Our preliminary assessment indicates:
• Most Bay 10 districts have their own sworn personnel and are also serviced to

varying degrees by police/sheriff departments

• Most Bay 10 districts employ their own non-sworn security personnel in-lieu of

contracting

• There are many variations on how staff collaborate and coordinate with outside

public safety agencies—this greatly impacts job classifications, duties and compensation

18

Meanwhile—the ABC Security Contract?

• One piece of the Peralta Public Safety model should not be changed

without taking into account the entire system

• Each piece of the model impacts the others
• The ABC contract should be extended at least until the District is

ready to consider a change (Steps #1 & #2 are completed). Step #3 i.e. implementation phase will take even longer

• You can always seek to amend the ABC or Sheriff contracts to address

immediate needs during this evaluation

19

Questions?

• 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

20