Matrix Report On Henderson Jail

Corrections Division Assessment
HENDERSON, NEVADA
FINAL REPORT
June 21, 2023

Corrections Division Assessment Henderson, NV
In summary, this study is designed to be a comprehensive assessment of the Henderson

Police Department Corrections Division.
(2) Methodology Used to Conduct the Study
The project team utilized a number of approaches in order to fully understand the service
environment and issues relevant to the study, including the following:
• Interviews with the leadership, supervisors, and line level staff throughout the
division as well as supporting interviews from within the Police Department, labor
representatives, and other City departments. Interviews were conducted using a
mixture of both virtual and in-person meetings.
• Observations of the Detention Center operations. The project team was onsite in
September 2022 observing operations and shadowing staff.
• Data Collection across functional areas of the division in order to enable extensive
and objective analysis.
• Iterative and interactive process in which the project team first developed an
understanding of the current organization and service delivery system, identified
issues, and assessed staffing, operational, and facility needs.
Throughout the process, findings and interim deliverables were reviewed with the project
steering committee which included representatives from the Corrections Division, Police
Department executive staff, City Finance, and Facilities Maintenance.
(3) Key Findings
As part of the analysis there were several key findings that impact current and future
operations of the Corrections Division. Key findings and observations include:
• The average daily population has decreased dramatically since 2017 and is mostly
a result of fewer contracted inmates.
• Based on the results of the employee survey, employee morale is low and there are
significant concerns about the use of FMLA.
• Overtime, leave usage, and light duty hours has increased significantly since 2017.
• Turnover for Correction Officers, Sergeants, and Lieutenants has averaged 8% over
the past five fiscal years. Compared to trends in the industry this turnover rate is
exceptionally low.
Matrix Consulting Group 2

2. Security Staffing and Operational Analysis

This chapter will evaluate the operational and staffing approaches to the Henderson
Detention Center. The following sections will focus on security personnel.
1. Overview of the Existing Detention Center Work Environment
The Henderson Detention Center has experienced many of the same operational and
staffing challenges as other public safety operations for the last several years. This
includes challenges with retaining staff and operating at full staffing levels, extensive use
of overtime to meet staffing and operational needs, and difficulties recruiting for open
positions. This has impacted operations and the staff who work at the Detention Center.
Examples of recent staffing and operation impacts include:
• Sergeants and Lieutenants are in “acting” positions to backfill vacancies on a

regular basis. This has included several positions that have been acting close to a
year, while awaiting annual promotion testing.
• Total light duty hours for staff have tripled since 2019, from 2,945 to 9,000 hours
annually.
• Average annual leave hours per Correction Officer increased from 312 hours in
2017 to 443 in 2021.
• Annual overtime hours worked for Correction Officers has increased nearly 20%
between 2017 (10,401 hours) and 2021 (12,107 hours).
• Transport duties are completed by officers pulled from other posts, overtime, and
occasionally by patrol officers.
• The average daily inmate population has dropped from 501 in 2012 to 250 in 2021.
Each of these challenges and their impact are discussed later in this chapter.
2. Overview of the Current Security Fixed Post Staffing Plan
Security posts are staffed by Correction Officers.

The following table summarizes the fixed post staffing
plan by shift.

3. Operational and Staffing Approaches That Impact the Detention Center.
The following subsections will discuss operational approaches that impacts Correction
Officer availability.
(1) Escorting of Inmate Service Providers
In staff interviews and the project team’s observations, it was noted that the Henderson
Detention Center requires that most inmate service providers who are within the secure
facility be escorted by staff. The exception to this policy is medical staff who are
assigned to the facility by NaphCare. However, when inmate service providers including
medical staff interact with an inmate, a Correction Officer is required to accompany the
service provider. Henderson staff indicated that this policy is in place for the safety of
the service provider and inmate.

Internal security and safety is important for all individuals who are inside the detention
facility. The current approach of all non-custody staff being escorted and accompanied
by a Correction Officer when engaging with an inmate is not a common practice. For
inmates who are properly classified, the need for a Correction Officer to be present is
generally only required for individuals who are maximum custody, in administrative/
disciplinary segregation, on mental health/illness watch, or demonstrated behavioral
characteristics that pose a safety concern. As part of the inmate classification process,
individuals who pose an increased safety risk should be properly housed in units with
similar classifications. Therefore, the need to escort or accompany inmate service
providers should be limited to only the maximum, mental health, or special custody
housing unit(s).
If the escort/accompany policy was changed to include only those individuals’

classifications as described above, it would free up Correction Officers from having to
accompany non-custody staff except in the special custody housing units. This approach
is common across all types of detention and correctional facilities across the United
States. For example, the housing officer assigned would still be in the housing unit and
within sight and sound (may be from the housing unit control center) when a social worker
is meeting with a minimum or medium custody inmate on the housing unit. After a social
worker meets with the inmate, the Correction Officer should pat down the inmate to
ensure that contraband is not introduced into the facility.
Changes to the escort/accompanying policy for inmate service providers to only require
an escort for the special custody population would improve operational efficiencies for
both Correction Officers and service providers.
Recommendation:
Modify the approach to requiring a Correction Officer to escort all non-medical personal
in the facility and be immediately adjacent when engaging with inmates.
(2) Transportation and Duties Outside the Facility
A challenge noted by staff was related to the transportation of inmates to and from the
facility. The transportation of individuals for medical appointments outside of the facility
occur periodically and impact staffing levels.

transition to the facility and

housing rover positions that are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter.
Recommendation:
Transition to the facility and housing rover posts.
(3) Staff Breaks
A staffing and scheduling approach that impacts the Detention Center operations is
related to staff breaks. The current contract for Correction Officers includes a total of 90
minutes of break on each shift. This is split between a 60 minute and 30 minute break for
all officers. When staff are on break, they are required to remain onsite in the event they
need to respond to an incident.
As staff take their breaks, this results in modified operations for the facility. This is
especially pronounced for officers assigned to a housing unit.
This is especially noted in Pod 2, where higher custody and

special custody populations are housed. Other operational impacts may occur due to
limited availability of officers to assist with routine functions.
To accommodate staff breaks in the staffing plan, the project team will incorporate the
90 minute break into officer’s net annual work hours calculation. By incorporating staff
breaks into this calculation it will identify the appropriate staffing needs to provide staff
with their break time and reducing the impact on operations in the Detention Center.

(4) Intake and Release Staffing Approaches
Based on the current staffing plan, there are a total of

within the current staffing plan that officers can easily be pulled to escort service
providers, conduct pill pass with medical staff, assist with 30 minute checks for mental
health inmates, assist with other facility related tasks (e.g., food service deliveries, etc.),
and respond readily to institutional emergencies. When booking officers are pulled to
perform other tasks, many which are routine, this impacts the operations in booking. The
booking area is one of the busiest areas of the Detention Center as this includes the intake
and processing of new arrestees, the transfer of individuals to court or other facilities,
and the release of inmates. While the area is often the busiest in the jail, it can also be
one of the most volatile areas.
New arrestees who are being booked in the jail have a higher likelihood of being
emotional, intoxicated, or influenced by a variety of substances. Booking staff have to
deal with a wide array of individuals and those than can potentially include an assortment
of challenges. Therefore, there is a need for adequate staffing in booking to improve
safety and security of this area. Because of the nature of the work and challenges with
those individuals particularly being booked, one of the shift Sergeants is assigned to
booking and resides in an adjacent office.
Staffing levels in booking need to be adequate to ensure the efficient and secure
operations of this area. This will require changes to operational and staffing approaches
to limit the need to pull booking officers to handle routine operations.
Operational modifications that should be implemented include:
• Limiting the escort of inmate service providers and others when they engage with
classified inmates. (previously discussed)
• Utilize other employee classifications than Correction Officer to conduct non

security duties such as meeting a truck at the loading dock.
• Utilize facility rover positions to complete routine tasks. Rover positions may be
assigned to the booking or housing areas and float between the two areas
depending on current tasks and need. (addressed in the rover section)
• Deploy the imaging technology that will scan inmates when they arrive to reduce
the number of required full body searches.

• Create an interlock vestibule or hallways for inmate releases so that Correction

Officers do not have to escort the inmate to the exterior exit in the vehicle sallyport
and retrieve their firearms before opening the exterior door. The inmate may be
escorted to the vestibule or hallway, but the officer does not have to be adjacent
when the exterior door is opened.
There are several operational approaches to improve operational efficiencies in addition

to having sufficient staff elsewhere in the facility to reduce the reliance
.
. Needed changes are

presented in this chapter to address these issues.
(5) Court Duties
Booking officers often assist with escorting inmates to the court proceeding area within
the perimeter of the Detention Center. In the court proceeding area (in the Detention
Center), Correction Officers provide oversight of inmates. There has been a recent change
with court proceedings, especially arraignments occurring seven days per week. Staffing
and operational approaches during court proceedings on the weekend should be adjusted
to accommodate these proceedings. For weekend court operations, facility rovers should
be responsible for facilitating the court proceedings.
(6) Lobby Security
When the Detention Center lobby is open to the public, it is staffed by a Correction Officer
who is responsible for screening and assisting visitors. With a need for additional
Correction Officers in the secure part of the facility, this position could transition to a non-
certified position.
While transitioning to a non-certified position would reduce the salary and benefit
expenses associated with staffing this position and free up one additional officer to work
inside the secure perimeter, there are several drawbacks as noted below:
• Changing to a non-certified position would be inconsistent with public screening

checkpoints in other major city buildings which are staffed by certified officers.
• In the event that the lobby security position is vacant, it would likely be backfilled
by a Correction Officer, potentially creating additional operational challenges in the
Detention Center.
• It would limit staffing flexibility and rotational spots for Correction Officers.

While it might be feasible to change the classification of the lobby position, it would likely
cause more issues with staffing in the Detention Center and not align with other current
practices throughout the City.
Conclusion:
The Lobby Security post should remain a Correction Officer post.
(7) Promotional Testing Process
It is our understanding that the Police Department only conducts promotional testing for
Sergeant and Lieutenant positions once a year. As vacancies occur in both of these ranks,
it requires an “acting” individual to serve in these respective capacities. This can have a
domino effect on staffing. When an individual is an acting Lieutenant and Sergeant role,
it ultimately leads to a correctional officer position not being filled.
The current ‘acting’ approach impacts overall Correction Officer availability in the
organization. While there may not be an official correctional officer vacancy, there are
less individuals available to be assigned when staff are in acting Sergeant and Lieutenant
roles. For example, at the time of staff interviews, half of the sergeant and lieutenant
positions were vacant and thus requiring “acting” individuals in this role. This approach
resulted in six correctional officer positions that were not filled, in addition to the five
actual vacancies.
If the promotional process was to occur more frequently this would have a positive
impact on the organization. Changes to the frequency of testing or the timing of
promotions are beneficial, especially with the later. If promotions were to occur either
quarterly or semi-annual it would reduce the need for individuals in the acting capacity.
When this issue was discussed with staff, it was determined that a more frequent
promotional process would not necessarily facilitate a positive impact on the
organization. Staff indicated that there is a limited pool of eligible staff who meet the
minimum qualifications for promotion. Therefore, it is recommended for management to
review the current requirements for Sergeant and Lieutenants to determine if it is possible
to modify the requirements and that current requirements do not restrict qualified staff
from being promoted. If requirements are modified, it may require additional supervisory
training to equipment staff prior to or shortly after their promotion.
Recommendation:
Review current requirements for Sergeant and Lieutenants to ensure that the
requirements are not too restrictive to promote qualified individuals into these roles.

4. Staffing Modifications.
This section will evaluate and recommend staffing changes for the secure posts for the
Detention Center. Additionally, a revised fixed post staffing plan will be provided.
(1) Mental Health / Medical Unit (MHU)
The Detention Center has a mental health / medical unit. The use of this unit is often
limited due to staffing constraints or when it is in use, to cover
this area. Most of these individuals are currently located in booking to provide a higher
level of supervision.
With the increase of inmates with mental health, medical, substance, and suicidal issues,
there is a strong need to utilize the MHU. By modifying the fixed post staffing plan to
include a MHU post, it would then allow the Detention Center to provide a higher level of
care in a concentrated area of the facility versus overseeing these individuals in booking
or housing in the maximum/special custody housing unit.
MHU should be operated as a continuous Correction Officer post. This position may also
periodically augment booking staff when there is a large influx on new arrestees.
Recommendation:
Establish the post of MHU Officer to provide 24/7 operation of this unit.
(2) Facility Rover
As discussed previously there is a limited pool of available Correction Officers to assist

with escorting, officer relief, and other operational needs in the Detention Center. These
needs are often met by pulling officers from other posts, most notably booking officers.
This practice negatively impacts all operations in the facility and may decrease the safety
of staff and inmates. There is a need to create one additional facility rover position.
The new rover position will not be assigned to a specific housing or booking post but
would provide support to both areas. The post would be able to escort contractors,
inmate service providers, receive deliveries, relieve officers at their post for bathroom
breaks, etc. This post should be staffed at a minimum during the day shift and during the
night shift before lights out.
, this post can backfill other posts so that staff can
rotate off for their fours off each pay period.

Recommendation:
Create the post of Facility Rover to provide enhanced operational flexibility and perform
(3) Segregation Housing (Pod 2)
Pod two is a multi-custody housing unit that includes a combination of maximum security
inmates and special custody individuals. There are subareas in Pod 2 that separate the
population. , which poses
operational challenges when dealing with certain inmates in the unit. Some inmates
based on their classification require two officers when interacting in the same physical
space. When these interactions occur, it requires an officer from another area to
supplement the officers.
With the current approach to staffing, there is limited resources available to assist when
staff engage with difficult inmates and supplementing staff must be pulled from other
duties. The approach can have a ripple effect throughout the facility and impact the
entirety of operations. Additional staffing resources are needed to address the
operational challenges associated with the inmate population housed in Pod 2.
Challenges will become more pronounced in the event that more individuals with
maximum and special custody classifications reside in the facility.
To augment Segregation Housing and other housing units, a Housing Rover post should
be created to provide additional support. This post at a minimum should be staffed
during the day shift. On the night shift, the post may be staffed prior to lights out in the
facility. However, the
post should primarily focus on providing support to the segregation unit(s) during all
other hours.
It is recommended to create the post of Housing Rover during the day shift. The Housing
Rover can assist with 30 minute and 1-hour inmate checks, inmate recreation, court
proceedings, day room, pill call, social services, staff relief, and assistance with
challenging inmates. This modification would reduce the use of Booking Officers to
provide these services, which occurs frequently.
Recommendation:
Establish the post of Housing Rover to assist with duties in the housing area and perform

Recommendation:
5. Net Annual Work Hours Calculation
When analyzing the staffing needs for a detention facility, it is important to calculate the
availability of staff throughout the year. A single person is not available to provide
coverage for their post for the total number of hours scheduled to work. Staff have to
complete training to maintain their certifications and will take paid and unpaid leave time
throughout the year. Consequently, it is important to calculate net availability for variables
such as time off for vacation, sick leave, training, light duty, and other hours when staff
are not available.
(1) Historic Leave
The project team was provided with detailed leave data from 2017 to 2022 for all
correctional officer and sergeant staff members. The following tables summarize the net
annual work hour calculations for leave taken.
Historic Leave Data (CO)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Leave Type Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Annual Admin Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0
Special Leave 7.7 12.8 0.8 0.4 11.1 16.8
Bereavement Pay 3.4 4.3 3.9 2.4 5.5 7.0
Taken Compensatory Time 47.6 47.9 50.5 43.7 65.4 65.1
Holiday Banked Taken 50.1 46.6 48.1 94.0 80.6 52.6
Leave w/o Pay Discip. Act 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0
Leave Without Pay 3.4 2.2 1.0 0.2 2.7 6.4
Military Leave 4.2 10.6 9.8 8.3 9.2 7.7
Sick Pay 76.7 80.9 90.3 91.9 129.1 106.7
Sick Incentive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5
Union Leave Paid 0.8 1.3 1.0 4.3 1.9 4.9
Vacation 117.9 128.5 113.0 93.4 138.0 151.4
Total Leave 312.5 335.4 318.9 363.1 443.7 434.0
The number of leave hours taken by Correction Officers has increased dramatically since
2017 to 2022. The six year historic average is 368 hours of leave used annually.
The following table summarizes the annual leave data for Sergeants.

Historic Leave Data (Sgt)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Leave Type Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Special Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bereavement Pay 10.0 6.7 9.0 5.1 8.4 13.3
Holiday Banked Taken 36.2 38.3 28.9 96.7 84.7 39.5
Leave w/o Pay Discip. Act 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2
Military Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sick Pay 8.6 118.6 69.8 41.8 112.9 80.9
Sick Incentive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7
Union Leave Paid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0
Vacation 145.6 136.5 220.5 164.5 137.3 232.2
Total Leave 207.4 300.4 331.4 327 370 386.9
Similar to Correction Officers, the annual leave for Sergeants has increased since 2017.
The six year historic average leave is 321 hours. However, the leave for Sergeants is about
20% less than that for Correction Officers.
(2) Light Duty Hours
Officers who are on light duty impacts the ability to staff the Detention Center. The
following table summarizes the total hours of staff assigned to light duty (LD) and
workers compensation light duty (WD) between 2017 and 2022.
Total Light Duty Hours
Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

LD Hours 1,582 290 363 949 5,478 4,577
WD Hours 383 520 2,583 2,181 3,522 3,940
Total Hours 1,965 810 2,946 3,129 9,000 8,516
The number of light duty hours has increased fourfold since 2017. With a peak of 9,000
hours in 2021 and a slight decrease to 8,516 hours in 2022. Based on an average of 88
positions filled in 2022, this is an average of 97 hours of light duty per correction officer /
sergeant in 2022.

(3) Officer Break Hours
As discussed previously, staff are currently provided a total of 90 minutes of breaks per
a 12 hour shift. Breaks take staff away from their post 12.5% of the time they are assigned
to their shift. This impacts overall staff availability. The following table summarizes the
impact of breaktime for 8-, 10-, and 12-hour shift schedules.
Total Break Hours by Shift
Shift Length (Hours) 8 10 12

Annual Shifts Assigned 260 208 182
Total Shifts Actually Worked2 216 173 144
Break Time (Minutes) Per Shift 60 75 90
Total Break Hours 216 216 216
The impact on staff availability for breaktime is 216 hours annually. For this calculation
it was assumed that staff took 60, 75, and 90 minutes of breaktime for 8, 10, and 12 hour
shift respectively.
(4) Net Annual Work Hours Calculation
Before a staffing model can be developed, it is important to determine staff’s net

availability in order to fully understand the total staffing needs of a facility, as inevitably
staff will have scheduled and unscheduled leave and be unable to work their post every
assigned shift. Based on vacation and sick leave, training requirements, and other leave
information provided by the City of Henderson, the following net availability averages
were calculated for Correction Officers and Sergeants:
The following factors are considered in these net availability calculations:
• Work Hours per Year - Total number of scheduled work hours for officers, without
factoring in leave, training, or anything else that takes officers away from normal
on-duty work. This forms the ‘base number’ from which other availability factors
are subtracted from. For 12 hour shift it is assumed that staff will not have a short
shift every two weeks and would work a total of 84 hours compared to 80 hours
for 8 and 10 hour shift schedules.
Base number (8 & 10 hour shifts): 2,080 scheduled work hours per year
Base number (12 hour shifts): 2,184 scheduled work hours per year
2
Based on 2017 – 2022 leave average for Correction Officers. Assigned hours minus six year annual leave
average, divided by shift hours.

• Total Vacation, Sick, and Holiday Leave Hours - (subtracted from total work hours
per year) Includes vacation, sick, and holiday leave – anything that would cause an
officer normally scheduled to work on a specific day to be absent. As a result, this
category excludes on-duty training. Also, this category includes the total number
of hours per year spent completing other task that may be identified as unpaid
leave, paid time off, bereavement leave, military leave, compensatory, and time not
captured in other areas.
Calculated from 2017 – 22 data (Correction Officers): 368 hours of leave per year.
Calculated from 2017 –22 data (Sergeants): 321 hours of leave per year.
• Light Duty - (subtracted from total work hours per year) Includes an average of
light duty time from 2017 to 2022. This category is separated due to the significant
increase in the number of light duties hours over the past six years.
Calculated from 2017 – 22 data: 50 hours of light duty per year.
• On-Duty Training Time - (subtracted from total work hours per year) The total
number of hours spent per year while completing training. The number is based on
the desired average of 50 hours of training annually per year, with 35 hours
conducted while staff are scheduled to work. Note: This would be a change in
current practice of all training being conducted on overtime.
Average: 35 hours of on-duty training time per year
• On-Duty Break Time - (subtracted from total work hours per year) The total
number of hours spent by staff on breaks each shift This is based on percentage
of shifts work throughout the year when subtracting leave hours.
Break hours: 216 hours of leave per year.
• Net Availability - Given the total number of hours in which officers are actually
available to work after accounting for all leave, as well as on-duty training, in
addition to other time. This is calculated by beginning with the total number of
scheduled work hours and subtracting each of these factors.
Calculated from previously listed factors (8 & 10 Hour Shifts): 1,411 net available
hours per Correction Officer.
Calculated from previously listed factors (12 Hour Shifts): 1,515 net available hours
per Correction Officer.

Calculated from previously listed factors (8 & 10 Hour Shifts: 1,458 net available
hours per Sergeant.
Calculated from previously listed factors (8 & 10 Hour Shifts: 1,562 net available
hours per Sergeant.
The result of the calculation of these factors is the net availability of officers – the average
number of hours in which an officer is available to work a post after all types of leave,
vacation, sick time, on-duty training, and other tasks have been considered.
The following table outlines this calculation process, displaying how each availability
factor contributes to the overall rate at which officers are available to work. This table is
separated for Correction Officers and Sergeants.
Net Annual Work Hours Calculation
Officers Sergeants
8 & 10 12 Hour 8 & 10 12 Hour
Hour Shift Shift Hour Shift Shift
Base Annual Work
2,080 2,184 2,080 2,184
Hours
Total Leave Hours − 368 368 321 321
Light Duty Hours − 50 50 50 50
On-Duty Break Hours − 216 216 216 216
On-Duty Training Hours − 35 35 35 35
Net Available Hours = 1,411 1,515 1,458 1,562
For the 8 and 10 hour shift configuration, Correction Officers are available to work 67.8%
of their assigned shifts. However, with the 12 hour shift configuration and working 84
hours every two weeks, staff are available 69.4% of their assigned shifts, an increase of
1.6% availability. If staff are assigned to work 84 hours every two weeks this has an
impact of overall staff availability versus the current approach of having staff assigned to
a short shift every two weeks. Based on current staffing challenges, staffing levels are
rarely appropriate where staff can work their short shift. By transitioning to an 84 hour
pay period, staff availability will increase.
6. Total Staffing Needs
The following table presents the total staffing needs for the recommended fixed post
staffing plan for a 12 hour shift schedule. Alternative staffing schedules for 8 and 10 hour
shift configurations are provided in the Appendix.

A total of 90 Correction Officers and 11 Sergeants are needed based on net annual work
hours. This is an increase in 15 budgeted Correction Officer and three Sergeant positions.
However, the number of recommended Sergeant positions is 10 supervisors, with five
sergeants assigned to days and five to nights. One Sergeant can serve as a flexible
Sergeant who backfills when other staff are out. Alternatively, the Detention Center may
continue to identify an officer in charge or use overtime to cover sergeant vacancies. The
staffing needs for an 8 hour shift schedule is 95 Correction Officers and 12 Sergeant
positions. This is six total positions more than the 12-hour shift schedule but may create
more scheduling challenges due to the 5 day per week work schedule.
For the 10 hour shift schedule, a total of 106 Correction Officers and 13 Sergeants would
be needed. This is 18 total positions more than the 12-hour shift and would create
challenges with scheduling staff so that they do not all overlap on the same day.
Overall, it is recommended to increase the number of authorized positions in the jail to

account for the increase in leave usage and light duty hours. Also, the net annual work
hour calculation takes into account staff break hours and the addition of three fixed posts.
Irrespective of inmate population, the facility design and related operations can benefit
from added fixed posts to facilitate safety, security, and operational effectiveness. These
changes result in the need for additional personnel resources to account for reduced staff
availability and additional staff assigned for each shift.
7. Incorporating Staff Turnover into the Staffing Needs
The previous staffing calculations does not account for staff turnover. To determine the
total number of staff to be authorized for the jail, an overhire component is consistent
with best practice. It is important to consider the number of vacancies that currently exist,
as well as the rate of turnover.
An agency is rarely fully staffed, as there are vacancies that occur as a result of retirement,
termination, and other factors. When these events occur, it takes a significant amount of
time to recruit a new position, complete the hiring process, for the new hire to be trained
to be a Correction Officer, and complete the FTO program before the individual can
independently work. Given this consideration, agencies must always hire above the
number needed to provide adequate staffing resources (overhire).
Overhire, as noted, is consistent with best-practice and is considered progressive as it

allows for proactive hiring in order to help avoid the disadvantages associated with short-
staffing. There are, however, two particular elements associated with overhire that need
to be considered: authorized overhires versus authorized and funded overhires.

• Authorized overhire positions are those requested by the associated department

and confirmed by the governing body in a position control or other document. They
are, however, not funded positions, thereby requiring subsequent confirmation by
the governing body if these are ultimately occupied by personnel. This approach
allows a department to engage in continuous/proactive hiring but also requires a
subsequent approval from the governing body for funds to expend monies on
these overhire position types. This provides additional budget control.
• Authorized and funded overhire positions confirm by the governing body in the
annual budget both the approval of positions but also that funds are immediately
available to fill them. Monies for these positions are “front-loaded” into the
department budget and are therefore managed over the year accordingly. This
overhire approach is less constricting than the former but may be perceived as
providing excessive budgetary flexibility (unless certain budget restrictions are
applied) as these funds could potentially be used for other needs through inter-
fund transfers. Authorized and funded overhires can result in end-of-year
budgetary surplus for a department.
In sum, a selection needs to be made with respect to authorized versus authorized and
funded overhire positions. Generally, for local governments that deploy this progressive
approach, the authorized and budgeted overhire is somewhat more common, but both
approaches are in use nationally.
The overhire practice should become a permanent component of the Corrections Division
staffing plan. The amount of ‘buffer’ the Division requires should be based on the
historical rate of attrition. To determine this buffer, the project team evaluated the historic
turnover rate for Correction Officers, Sergeant, and Lieutenant positions.
5 Year Historic Turnover
Year CO LT Total
FY 18 6 0 6
FY 19 6 1 7
FY 20 8 1 9
FY 21 4 0 4
FY 22 4 5 9
5 - Year Avg 5.6 1.4 7
For the past five fiscal years an average of seven Correction Officers, Sergeants, and
Lieutenant positions that have been vacated. To account for the impact of turnover on
the organization, it is recommended to budget for three Correction Officer positions to
proactively account for staff turnover resulting in a total of 96 Correction Officer positions.

Recommendations:
Incorporate overhire in the budgeting process for Correction Officers.
A total of 90 Correction Officers, plus 3 overhire positions are needed for the 12 hour shift
schedule. This is an increase in 18 budgeted Correction Officer positions.
10 Correction Sergeant positions are needed, an increase of two authorized positions.

3. Support Services Staffing Analysis

This section of the staffing assessment will evaluate the support services staffing levels
and operational approaches.
1. Impact of Vacancies
The Support Services team has experience multiple vacancies that is impacting staff’s
ability to perform their duties. The following vacancies and impacts were noted:
• Detention Center Technicians: At the time of onsite interviews three of the 13

positions assigned to this team were vacant. A vacancy rate of 23%. These
vacancies have resulted in some operational challenges during the booking and
release process, especially during peak times because not enough DST staff are
available to process individuals in or out of the facility.
• Classification Technicians: Two of the four classification technician positions

were vacant at the time of this study. This has resulted in delays in classification
of inmates and reclassification of individuals who have been in custody for an
extended period of time. This has resulted in some challenges with housing
inmates in proper housing units and requires a more cautious approach to inmate
housing and additional Correction Officer resources needed to operate the facility.
• Cooks: At the time of the interviews, all four full time cook positions were filled.
The two part time positions were not filled, which created challenges when staff
are on leave and with scheduling.
The Accreditation Officer has limited ability to perform their job and prepare the
organization to become accredited due to other staff vacancies. This position often
backfills vacancies and perform other shift related Correction Officer duties. Also, due to
vacancies with the Administrative Sergeant, Detention Center Technicians, and other
administrative support staff, there is not adequate staffing levels to research and collect
necessary items to apply for accreditation.
Vacancies in Support Services may impact both the operations of the respective teams
but often influence the efficiency of operations of the detention facility. Additional efforts
should be considered to expand recruitment and retention efforts for all positions that
are assigned to the Detention Center.
2. Detention Center Technician (DCT)
Detention Center Technicians (DCT) sit in the “bullpen” of the Center’s booking area and
are subject to the daily inmate/Correction Officer interactions related to booking, release,

suicide watch, etc. Broadly, this is a records function that is functionally located in a
higher risk area of the facility.
DCTs perform a variety of tasks related to the booking, sentencing and release process.
Much of their work is with PremierOne, OffenderTrack, Livescan and NIBERS systems.
The team is tasked with running wants and warrants; processes booking and release data
in systems; responds to numerous telephone inquiries; manage teletypes; interacts with
justice and municipal courts. They are essentially tasked with managing inmate
information and records from booking to release.
DCTs are assigned to 12-hour shifts and when they are fully staffed, a minimum of three
staff are assigned to each shift, with a minimum staffing of two. With only 10 positions
of 13 positions filled, most shifts have two DCT personnel scheduled. Each DCT works a
total of three shifts per week for a total of 36 hours as illustrated in the schedule below.
DCT Weekly Work Schedule

Shift Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
DAYS A1 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
DAYS A2 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
DAYS A3 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
DAYS B1 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
DAYS B2 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
GRAVES A1 1830-0630 1830-0630 1830-0630

GRAVES A2 1830-0630 1830-0630 1830-0630
GRAVES A3 1830-0630 1830-0630 1830-0630
GRAVES B1 1830-0630 1830-0630 1830-0630
GRAVES B2 1830-0630 1830-0630 1830-0630
DCTs are supervised by two DC Support Supervisor. The DC Support Supervisors are also
responsible for the supervision of the Central Control Room Operators. They operation
on a 10-hour overlapping schedule from 0600-1600 hours Sunday through Wednesday
and Wednesday through Saturday.
As discussed subsequently, first-line supervisors in a detention facility should be

equipped to fill in for their staff as this is an essential function of nearly all supervision
levels who are responsible for detention operations. This would be an equivalent
approach to Corrections Sergeants who can/must fill in, as required, to support
Correction Officer staff.

(1) Workloads
Definitive workload metrics for the DCTs are difficult to obtain. Major tasks performed
related to bookings, releases, telephone calls, etc. do not have reliable data based on the
project team’s data collection efforts. Telephone calls are not tracked, and booking and
release information does not appear comprehensive based upon spreadsheet data
provided. The most recent information given was from 2020 and showed a decline in
bookings and releases of 32% and 40%, respectively, compared to the same period in
2019. Given the continuing decline in average daily population (ADP) at the jail, DCT
workload should be similarly declining.
In the absence of relevant data, the project team cannot make a thorough analytical
assessment of baseline staffing needs for DCT personnel. Nevertheless, there are other
operational issue areas that influence staffing requirements.
(2) DCT Scheduling
The project team rarely sees work schedules less than a 40-hour work week. A 36-hour
schedule for DCTs complicates deployment and requires additional personnel as there
are less NAWH available per person to provide shift coverage. A more common 36/48
12-hour work schedule (84-hours every 2 weeks) would facilitate operational flexibility.
36/48 Work Schedule Example (12-hour shift)

Shift Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
DAYS A1 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
DAYS A2 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
GRAVES A1 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
GRAVES A2 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830 0630-1830
As shown by the above table, 4 DCT personnel are required to field 1 full-time equivalent
position on a more common 12-hour schedule than the 5 DCT personnel required now on
a 36-hour work week. Excluding accommodation for absenteeism, a new 84-hour two-
week schedule would require 8 Detention Center Technicians for two (2) staff on a 24/7
basis and 12 DCT personnel for three (3) staff on a 24/7 basis. This is compared to the
current authorized staffing of 13 DCT positions.
In sum, revising the DCT work schedule would create staffing efficiencies. However, this
may require a reworking of the DCT’s labor agreement.

(3) Supervision
As noted, there are currently two supervisor positions overseeing the Detention Center
Technician staffing. They have 4/10 work schedules with a Wednesday overlap.
Consequently, direct supervision personnel are only available for 70 of 168 weekly hours
(42% of the week). In the absence of direct supervision, DCTs interface with Corrections
Sergeants who are less familiar with the duties and responsibilities required of the job.
Similar to a revised DCT schedule, the supervisors should be on a similar 84-hour two-
week schedule (36/48) increasing direct supervision to 50% of the work week with no
redundant supervisory overlap. This should be on Day Shift from 0630-1830. Because of
the importance of first-line oversight, the City of Henderson should also create two (2)
new Lead Detention Center Technician (LDCT) job classifications that would replace two
current DCT positions. These personnel would be assigned on Graveyard shift to provide
guidance resulting in 100% oversight (barring absenteeism) for the DCT contingent.
As part of our data collection efforts, it was noted that the current supervisors of the DCTs
are not cross trained well to perform the job duties and responsibilities of their staffing
contingent. This kind of para-professional operation requires the availability of “working
supervisors” to periodically provide staff coverage in the event of unexpected
absenteeism, temporary excessive workload, etc. Consideration should be given to cross
training DC Support Supervisors in the duties performed by their team. This will improve
operational efficiency and knowledge of the processes, better ensure that DCTs are
performing their jobs effectively, and provide flexibility in scheduling and backfilling staff
vacancies. In effect, the supervisors should be cross-trained in their staff’s key duties
and responsibilities such that they can temporarily replace them on an as-needed basis.
(4) Absentee Coverage
As discussed in greater detail in a later chapter of this report, there are leave-related
issues that require resolution. An illustration of this is that approximately one-third of
DCT personnel are under FMLA restrictions and have overtime constraints. This conflicts
with current job duty requirements, places additional strain on other DCT staff who are
forced to work additional overtime and creates workplace problems discussed
throughout this report. While addressing the supervisor cross-training issue above will
help resolve operational issues caused by temporary absentee coverage, it is not a long-
term solution to an apparent endemic problem in the Corrections Division.

Recommendations:
Revise the Detention Center Technician (DCT) work schedule from a 36-hour weekly
schedule to a 36/48 84-hour two-week schedule. This will facilitate more efficient staff
coverage at reduced staffing requirements.
Improve DCT workload data collection efforts to better determine DCT staffing needs
given workload reductions over recent years. With scheduling changes, either 8, 10, or 12
positions should be adequate as opposed to the 13 DCT authorized positions currently.
Adjust the DCT Supervisor’s schedule to a similar 84-hour two-week schedule and deploy
them on Day Shift.
Reclassify two (2) DCT positions to a new Lead Detention Center Technician job
classification and assign them to the Graveyard Shift.
Cross-train the DCT supervisors so that they can perform key DCT duties and
responsibilities thereby allowing them to provide intermittent staff coverage, as needed.
Re-locate the DCT staff from the Detention Center “bullpen” to more private/secure office
space.
3. Central Control Room Operators (CCRO)
Control Room Operators (CCRO) are responsible for the operation of the Detention
Center’s central control. This includes the operation of all interior and exterior secured
doors and monitoring inmate and staff movement through the video system. There is a
total of eight CCRO positions. Staff are assigned to 12-hour shifts,
and especially on day shift.

However, they will operate with . During the day and
for relief, a Correction Officer will backfill in central control.
This is more critical as the Detention

Center continues to house more individuals who have more mental and physical
challenges and with the addition of over 100 new cameras in the facility. Additionally,
Correction Officers should only be used in central control in emergency staffing
circumstances or if they are on light duty.

(1) CCRO Scheduling
CCRO are similar to DCTs and are assigned to three, 12 hour shifts each week for a total
of 36 hours weekly. However, they only have one staff assigned per shift for Saturday and
Sunday. Ideally, the more common approach of a 36/48 12-hour work schedule (84-hours
every 2 weeks) would facilitate increased operational flexibility and efficiency. It is
recommended to transition to the 84 hour every two week schedule.
(2) CCRO Staffing
By transitioning to the 36/48 12-hour work schedule would maintain the current allocation
of eight CCROs and provide two staff assigned for each shift. However, this approach
does not incorporate relief into the staffing needs. Based on net annual work hours, two
additional CCROs would be needed to account for relief. Therefore, it is recommended to
increase CCRO staffing from 8 to 10 authorized positions.
Recommendations:
Revise the Central Control Room Operator (CCRO) work schedule from a 36-hour weekly
schedule to a 36/48 84-hour two-week schedule.
Minimum staffing for central control should be two CCROs.
Increase authorized CCRO staffing levels to 10. This is an increase in 2 authorized

positions.
4. Classification
Classification personnel classify all inmates entering the Detention Center based on risk
and housing assignment. Staff participate in disciplinary hearings; select and track time
of inmate workers; use Nevada Pre-Trial Risk to assess own recognizance suitability and
48-hour release; re-assess classification every 2-3 weeks, as time available. A total of four
Classification Technician positions are budgeted and the team is supplemented by one
Correction Officer, who spends half their time on classification and the other half on
intelligence. Classification Technicians are assigned to work from 0630 to 2130 hours.
One challenge for the classification team is related to continuous vacancies for the team.
At the time of interviews, two of the four positions were vacant. Another operational
challenge is the current policy that a Correction Officer must accommodate a
classification technician when they are conversing with an inmate. The first issue results
in challenges with (re)classifying inmates in a timely manner which means inmates may
be housed in a more secure housing unit than ultimately needed. This may require
officers to move inmates after they were initially assigned to a more restrictive housing

unit. The second issue impacts Correction Officer availability, both for the half time
assigned classification Correction Officer or when a Correction Officer is pulled away so
a classification technician may engage with an inmate.
Many local Detention Centers have a non-certified staff as classification technicians who
assess inmates for classification purposes without being accompanied by a Correction
Officer. As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, this is a potential policy change. With
this change, it would also allow the half time Correction Officer assigned to classification
to be utilized elsewhere in the facility such as an expanded intelligence role, investigation
of inmate complaints, etc. Additionally, in many detention centers, initial classification
and pre-trial screening is conducted by a booking clerk or other staff similar to the DCT
role in Henderson. This provides for a timely initial assessment for program eligibility and
may allow for a quicker review when a classification technician starts their shift the next
day.
Historically, a total of four classification technician positions have been authorized for the
Detention Center, even when they inmate population was double what it is currently. If
four classification technicians were sufficient for double the population and currently able
to conduct pre-trial risk assessments now with only one or two positions filled, the biggest
challenge is conducting proactive reassessments. Reassessments should be occurring
monthly to meet industry best practices. With approximately only 250 to 300 inmates in
facility, the number of Classification Technicians can be reduced to three. If the
population increase above, 400 then a fourth position should be added.
Recommendation:
Based on current inmate population levels, the number of authorized Classification

Technicians should be reduced from 4 to 3.
5. Kitchen
There are a total of four full time and two part time cook positions assigned to the kitchen.
All Cooks report to the Administrative Lieutenant. This has periodically posed challenges
related to operations in the kitchen as there is no lead among the Cooks. This is
especially important as the Lieutenant is not readily accessible, and their office is not
located near the kitchen. Due to the current organizational structure of the cooks, each
of the four full time positions rotate who is responsible for ordering supplies and setting
the quarterly menu. For consistency and efficiency, the position of lead or senior cook
who is responsible for oversight of the kitchen including ordering supplies should be
created.

The lead cook would be in addition to the four full time cook positions and would provide
some additional flexibility to backfill vacancies when the lead cook is scheduled to work.
Historically, it has been difficult to fill the two part time cook positions. This has resulted
in staffing challenges on over the weekend and when staff are absent. Consideration may
also be given to transitioning to an alternative staffing and scheduling approach or
additional incentives for recruiting and retaining part time cooks.
Recommendations:
Create the position of Lead Cook to serve as the supervisor in the Kitchen, which would
be an addition of one new authorized position.
Maintain the current allocation of 4 Cooks.

4. Special Programs and Services Analysis

The Special Programs and Services (SPS) team is responsible for a wide variety of
services including extradition team, warrants, pretrial programs (work release,
drug/alcohol testing), probation, and oversight of individuals required to perform
community services.
The following points summarize key roles and responsibilities of staff:
• Corrections Officers: provide field monitoring and various case management tasks
for individuals assigned to various programs and conditions.
• Special Services Officers: responsible for participant case management and

oversight of work crews and drug and alcohol testing programs.
• Work Program Coordinators: tasked with processing offender documentation,

oversight of in-house drug/alcohol testing, and provide administrative case
support.
• Case Specialist: Ensure compliance with conditions of participation, represent

individuals in court, follow-up for non-payment, investigation compliance
violations and serve violation notices.
• Administrative Clerk / Administrative Assistant: Assist with defendant intake,

payment processing, scheduling appointments and administrative support.
Overall, there are a total of 13 full time and 9 part time staff assigned to this team.
1. Workload
During staff interviews it was indicated that accurate workload information was not
available for historic data and so a current snapshot was provided. The following table
is a workload snapshot from September 2022.
SPS Workload Snapshot
Staff Active Cases in Pre-trial Pre-trial in

Name Cases Warrant cases warrant
Weathers 5 12 61 21
Johnson 53 156 83 91
Epperson 11 0 7 0
Burns 406 397 0 0
Morgan 408 453 0 0

Staff Active Cases in Pre-trial Pre-trial in

Name Cases Warrant cases warrant
Massey 402 480 0 0
Sibbett 401 328 0 0
Totals 1,686 1,826 151 112
Active cases refer to an active case file that is managed by a Specialist or Officer. Cases
in Warrant indicate that the case has not been completed and a notice of
violation/warrant has been issued for the non-compliant case. These cases are generally
not actively managed. Pre-trial cases refer to individuals are being monitored for pre-trial
release and may be actively participating in a diversion program. Pre-trial in warrant
status is for pre-trial cases that have violated conditions of their participation.
2. Staffing Analysis
Case management is the responsibility of the Correction Officer, Special Services Officer,
and/or the Case Specialist. Current staffing includes 2 Correction Officers, 2 Part Time
SSO Officers (maximum 19 hours per week), and 4 Case Specialist. Also, the Sergeant
and Lieutenant are currently carrying a caseload due to staffing vacancies.
Staffing levels for probation and pre-trial services is generally based on the number of
cases managed. The lower the intensity of supervision, the higher number of active cases
an officer can handle. The case range is also dependent on the requirement of site visits
(this occurs infrequently in Henderson), the location of drug/alcohol testing (centralized
location, mobile, or random field testing), and the frequency of meeting with the offender.
The individuals participating in Henderson’s programs generally require very little
engagement and check ins. The exception is those individuals who require drug/alcohol
testing, which is often completed in office or those individuals who are performing
community service. The average full time case officer for Henderson can manage
between 300 and 350 active cases. An average of 325 will be used.
Based on a snapshot of 1,686 active cases, a total of 5.2 case managers are needed for
active cases only.
Staff have a significant number of cases designated as “cases in warrant” which means
a violation has occur and the offender is in non-compliant. These cases are not
necessarily active but do require administrative support and investigation. A case
manager can handle a caseload of 500. Based on the workload snapshot of 1,826 cases
in warrant, a total of 3.6 case managers are needed.

Overall, a total of 8.8 case managers are needed to meet the current case load. Currently
there are slightly less than 7 FTEs assigned to case management. Two additional officer
positions are needed to handle the workload provided in the snapshot.
Staffing for Work Program Coordinators (2 full time and 3 part time), Administrative Clerk
(2), and Administrative Assistant (4 part time) is dependent on the caseload. Part time
staff are utilized to address fluctuations in workload associated with court days and
drug/alcohol testing days. This approach works well as there are influxes of individuals
several times per week or month. The current allocation is appropriate to meet the
workload and variability of work. The City should focus on filling several vacancies to
meet the current need.
Recommendations:
An equivalent of 9 full time Correction/Special Services Officers and Case Specialists are
needed. This is an increase in two authorized positions.

5. Management and Organizational Structure

This chapter will review various organizational and operational functions and issue areas.
These areas will include a review of pertinent policies and procedures, key issues
identified in the employee survey, management issues, and the organizational structure
of the Corrections Division.
1. Policies and Procedures
As part of Task 6 in the proposal, an assessment of policies and procedures was included.
Matrix Consulting Group’s data collection efforts requested documentation surrounding
policies and procedures and was provided various materials, including a total of 7
documents reflecting the Corrections Division’s guiding directives.
(1) Division Policy and Procedures Overview
In summary, the policies and procedures provided included the following document types:
• A single 16-page document of Division POST Orders finalized at the beginning of

this study (July 2022) describing in bullet-point format the various tasks/duties of
individual posts such as booking post, transporting officer post, etc.
• Six (6) policy and procedure documents from the Henderson Police Department’s
(HPD) manual covering leave, overtime, shift assignments and facility (Detention
Center) overview. As the Corrections Division is part of the police department,
there is no other independent division policy and procedure documentation other
than that noted above.
Importantly, the Henderson Police Department has been nationally accredited through
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA) since 2002. The
accreditation program requires agencies to comply with nationally established best
practice standards in four basic areas: policy and procedures, administration, operations,
and support services. As a consequence, the policies and procedures reflected in the
HPD manual are deemed acceptable by CALEA.
(2) Division Policy and Procedures Assessment
Policies and procedures should be developed under the following strict best management
practice principal promulgated by ISO and CALEA: Only organizational policies and
procedures required by standards, regulations, or company strategy must be developed. To
that end, CALEA offers the following guidelines with respect to the need for a law
enforcement policy or procedure. A positive answer to any one of the following questions

justifies inclusion into a policy or procedure manual. Four "no's" and the policy or
procedure should be eliminated.
• Is it required by federal laws, state statutes, local administrative rules and

regulations, or professional standards (e.g., CALEA)?
• Is it specified by contract?
• Is it necessary for effective operations of the organization?
• Would any harm come to the agency or its employees if it were eliminated?
In the context of the existing policy and procedure documentation provided on the
Corrections Division, the materials meet the four-point test for inclusion; however, there
are some opportunities for improvement related to the most recent POST Orders
documentation not formally included in the HPD policy and procedure manual.
Effective communication in policies and procedures is a predominant reason why the

International Quality Standards ISO 9001 mandates design and development reviews
(clause 7.3.4) and audits with respect to policies and procedures. Notably, there is a final
section in the HPD policies and procedures that accommodates this, with an
Accreditation Standards, Reference(s) and Revision History included at the conclusion.
The Corrections Division recent POST Orders is not developed in the same format as the
other HPD policies and procedures.
The following seven review protocols for updating and revising policies and procedures
such as the Corrections Division POST Orders are provided for consideration. Using these
guidelines as criteria for rating the adequacy of policies and procedures are generally
considered a best practice.
• Policy & Procedure Completeness - There must be no information, logic, or design

gaps. Documentation should show a review and/or update at least once every
three years.
• Policy & Procedure Control - The document and its described actions provide
sufficient “internal controls”3 such that they result in intended and expected
outputs and outcomes.
• Policy & Procedure Clarity - Documents must be easy to read and understandable.
3
Internal controls refer to the actions taken to achieve a specific objective (e.g., ensuring safe inmate movement
through a facility)

• Policy & Procedure Correctness - Documents must be grammatically correct

without spelling errors.
• Procedure Context – Procedural actions must properly describe the activity to be

performed.
• Procedure Consistency - All references and terms are used the same way, and the
procedure must ensure consistent results.
• Procedure Compliance – A sufficient number of actions are detailed to ensure the

procedure(s) achieve compliance.
An assessment of the Corrections Division POST Orders show they do not comply with
some of the review protocols noted above. By example, they are not developed consistent
with other HPD policies and procedures. Moreover, Procedure Context, Policy and
Procedure Control, and others are lacking in some of the 16-page documentation.
(3) Conclusion
In summary, many of the policies and procedures guiding Corrections Division operations
are adequate while some of the most recent POST Orders documentation has opportunity
for improvement.
Recommendation:
Adopt the CALEA four guidelines for policy and procedure inclusion and the seven-point
Policy and Procedure Review Protocol (as described in this report) to modify the
Corrections Division POST Orders. Ensure this documentation is consistent in
presentation with other HPD policies and procedures.
2. Budget Analysis
An important fiduciary responsibility of the City of Henderson is to appropriately budget

for annual expenses. This includes accurate budgeting for overtime expenditures. While
an assessment of overall budgeting practices is beyond the scope of this report,
particular fiscal practices that have important opportunities for improvement are noted.
While the City budget is hundreds of millions of dollars in value, and overtime
expenditures in public safety represent only a small percentage of this, at issue is the
long-standing risk overtime can represent. There are few line items in a municipal budget
that have the capacity to point to important risk areas such as overtime. Therefore,
improving overtime budgeting is crucial for financial stability and efficient operation.

(1) Overtime Budget Information
The following table provides three years’ data on the Corrections Division overtime.
Corrections Division OT Budget/Expense Compared to Salary – 2020-22
Year Budget % of Budget Expense % of Expense

2020 $1,589,784 12.3% $1,604,382 12.2%
2021 $1,589,784 12.1% $1,651,493 12.1%
2022 $1,589,784 11.9% $1,635,530 12.1%
The table shows the respective amounts and percentages associated with overtime
compared to the Division’s salary line item. In the prior three years overtime expenses
have always exceeded overtime budgets. Furthermore, this exceedance has been
approximately 12% of total salary for the past three years.
With respect to overtime, the expenditure overage is an overtime indicator that serves as
a signal for potentially urgent issues. A key “litmus test” of overtime budgets and
expenditures is if the overtime budget (planned or actual) exceeds 10% of total salary. As
shown, the Corrections Division exceeds this particular benchmark.
(2) Overtime Budget Practices
A review of the data above indicates that an approach to overtime budgeting for
Henderson public safety, and specifically the Corrections Division, requires improvement.
Historical evidence suggests that development of the overtime budgets for the
Corrections Division are not predicated on any historical metrics or advanced budgeting
practices. Rather, the outcome of annual overtime budgets is based on last year’s
developed budget and an assumption that last year’s overtime budget will prove
satisfactory. As shown in the above table, for three years (2020-2022) the same overtime
budget was developed at $1,589,784 irrespective of overtime budget expense in the fiscal
year.
There are difficulties associated with this budgetary approach, not the least of which it is
not based on any sound financial fundamentals. Causes of overtime can shift
dramatically from year-to-year, and in the absence of strongly considering these variables,
missing the overtime budget (e.g., exceeding) is more than likely.
One approach to overtime budgeting is trend analysis. This approach often results in
more reasonable budget estimates for which management can be held accountable.

Analyzing historical overtime data is the first step in improving overtime budgeting. This
data can provide valuable insights into which departments or programs have historically
incurred the most overtime costs, which months have the highest overtime expenses, and
which job classifications have the most overtime hours4. Analyzing this data will help in
creating a more accurate and realistic overtime budget.
A more sophisticated approach to overtime budgeting is using a zero-base budgeting

process whereby overtime is requested based upon projected annual needs. Recent
overtime budgets do not incorporate factors such as staff turnover (e.g., expected staff
turnover due to retirements).
Zero-base budgeting ensures justification for the overtime budget and allow executives
and political leadership to hold public safety department-heads accountable for their
overtime budget. Basing an overtime budget on the reality of warranted overtime
expenses as opposed to “plug-numbers” should be considered a best practice.
If the City desires to implement some additional sophistication in budgeting, the following
can be considered:
• Overtime should be separated as an independent line item in the published annual

budget, separate and apart from Salary and Wages. This will allow for transparency
at all levels of government with respect to overtime tracking. Given that overtime
can be symptomatic of other issues as discussed within this report, this line-item
detail should be considered a worthwhile notation in all future budget documents.
• Implementing overtime controls can be an effective way to reduce overtime costs.
One way to do this is to require pre-approval for overtime hours and audit these
approvals. This will help to ensure that overtime is only authorized when it is truly
necessary5. Another way to control overtime is to limit the amount of overtime
hours that employees can work. Setting a cap on overtime hours will help to
prevent excessive overtime expenses and reduce the risk of employee burnout6.
In order to facilitate more effective budgetary controls on overtime, the City can adopt the
previous practices.
4
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). (2018). Best Practices in Overtime
Management.
5
National League of Cities (NLC). (2020). Managing Overtime Costs: Strategies for Cities and Counties.
6
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2018). Managing Overtime Costs.

(3) Conclusion
In summary, the City can better refine their analytical approach to devising the Corrections
Division overtime budget, using best practice approaches to facilitate overtime
management and fiscal accountability. Further line-item detail with respect to overtime
budget expenditures is warranted, particular given a three-year pattern of exceedance.
Recommendations:
Consistently develop annual overtime budgets based on prior expenditure history for
overtime (trend analysis) and ideally develop new overtime budgets based upon this
information and on a defensible zero-based budgeting forecasts based on expected
future circumstances.
For transparency and additional overtime controls, implement separate overtime line
items in the Proposed and Adopted Annual Budget. Report upon these outcomes
quarterly and annually.
3. Analysis of Additional Factors Impacting Staff Operations
In addition to the prior quantitative analysis performed based on fixed post staffing
requirements and related support positions, there are other quantitative and qualitative
factors that must be considered to help address the longer-term staffing issues that have
become prevalent in corrections operations nationally. According to Pew Research:
Amid a nationwide worker shortage in various industries, prison systems

across the country are desperate to reverse an exodus of corrections officers
that administrators and prison experts describe as the worst ever. To attract
more officers, states are raising salaries, offering hiring bonuses, reducing
the minimum age to 18 and ratcheting up recruiting efforts with
advertisements on billboards and social media. The shortages have had a
severe impact on daily prison life, forcing officers to work mandatory
overtime and undercutting their fundamental duty to oversee and escort
people who are incarcerated, heightening tensions inside the prison walls.7
7
Prison Staff Shortages Take Toll on Guards, Incarcerated People, 9/26/22, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-
and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/26/prison-staff-shortages-take-toll-on-guards-incarcerated-people

As a consequence of the national state of affairs, addressing more nuanced issues that
influence staffing, and as a result overall correction operations, should be considered an
important aspect of problems resolution.
(1) Changes in Leave Patterns and Staffing Impacts
A review of historic leave patterns indicates a trend of increasing leave being taken by
personnel. The following table shows leave patterns for Correction Officer staff from
2017 to 2022.
Historic Leave Data (Correction Officer)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
Leave Detail Type Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Special Leave 7.7 12.8 0.8 0.4 11.1 16.8
Bereavement Pay 3.4 4.3 3.9 2.4 5.5 7.0
Holiday Banked Taken Police 50.1 46.6 48.1 94.0 80.6 52.6
Leave W/O Pay Disciplinary Act 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0
Military Leave 4.2 10.6 9.8 8.3 9.2 7.7
Sick Pay 76.7 80.9 90.3 91.9 129.1 106.7
Sick Incentive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5
Union Leave Paid 0.8 1.3 1.0 4.3 1.9 4.9
Vacation 117.9 128.5 113.0 93.4 138.0 151.4
Total Leave 312.5 335.4 318.9 363.1 443.7 434.0
As illustrated by the red text over the last two-year period, these leave types represent the
highest proportion of leave taken over the six-year period noted. Total leave has
increased a very notable 39% from 2017 to 2022, with a relatively consistent leave pattern
shown from 2017 to 2019. The recent uptick maybe a result of increased leave time
provided to employees as part of Covid-19 related changes in leave policies at the City.
Quantitatively as discussed in a prior section, total leave has an impact on NAWH

available and thus overall staffing requirements for fixed posts. Importantly, however,
increases in use of leave can illustrate an endemic issue surrounding more fundamental
operational problems, as an increase in leave use can reflect problems with employee
stress, employee morale, and other work conditions that impact effective Correction
Division operations.

(2) Potential Impacts of Various Leave-Related Issues
While there is a limitation on quantitative data with respect to significantly increased leave
over the past few years (thereby impacting operations), there are some data that point to
issue areas that can be influencing leave patterns. By example, the Matrix Consulting
Group completed an employee survey of the Corrections Division in November 2022.
Feedback was provided on a range of topics, including morale.
(2.1) Personnel Morale
84.4% of respondents suggested that the morale of the Detention Center is low. One-half
(50%) of respondents were in strong disagreement with the question: “The overall morale
of the Corrections Division is good.”
Correction officers play a critical role in maintaining safety and security within
correctional facilities. The job is demanding, and they face a wide range of challenges,
including dealing with difficult inmates, managing conflicts among prisoners, and
ensuring that all rules and regulations are followed. One of the most significant
challenges faced by Correction Officers is maintaining a positive morale, which is critical
for their job performance and overall well-being.
Low morale can have a significant negative impact on prison Correction Officers. When
officers have low morale, they are more likely to experience job dissatisfaction, burnout,
and other negative consequences. Low morale can also affect the safety and security of
the prison, as officers may be less alert and vigilant, and more prone to mistakes and
accidents. It can also lead to reduced safety and security within correctional facilities.
When officers have low morale, they may be less vigilant and alert, which can lead to
mistakes, accidents, and security breaches. Staff may also be more prone to violence, as
they may be less patient and more likely to use force to resolve conflicts. This can
increase the risk of injury to both officers and inmates.
One of the most significant consequences of low morale is job dissatisfaction. When
officers are dissatisfied with their job, they are more likely to feel unmotivated and
disengaged. This can lead to decreased productivity, reduced efficiency, and lower quality
of work. A review of the Survey Chapter reflects some of these sentiments. Studies have
found that job dissatisfaction is a significant predictor of turnover intentions among
Correction Officers, and that low morale is one of the primary reasons why officers leave
their jobs.8 However, turnover in the Corrections Division is much lower than many of the
8
Thompson, C. (2009). Correctional officer turnover: What we know and what we don't know. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 36(10), 1085

recent detention and public safety agencies the project team has worked with over the
past few years.
In sum, the quantitative impacts of low morale may include increased absenteeism,
turnover, and decreased productivity. It has been found to be a significant predictor of
absenteeism among correctional officers in several studies9. This can also lead to
increased costs associated with recruiting, hiring, and training new officers (Lambert et
al., 2007). Fundamentally, low morale creates operational and staffing issues in the
organization.
(2.2) Potential Abuse by Types of Leave
Another qualitative issue backed in part by survey results is the alleged leave abuse in the
Corrections Division, particularly with regard to Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
limitations. Furthermore, while not specifically leave from the facility, the usage of light
duty (LD) leaves the employee unable to perform the core duties and responsibilities of
the position, thereby impacting that staff’s availability.
Numerous interviews among staff, supervision/management, bargaining group

representatives and City Human Resources identified this apparently complicated FMLA
issue as an area requiring resolution. With respect to the question: “Issues related to
leave or overtime abuse are resolved quickly,” this received a high level of disagreement
overall (79.6%). Importantly, all (100%) respondents identifying themselves as leadership
staff (supervisor and above) indicated that issues related to overtime/leave abuse are not
resolved quickly.
Leave abuse, also known as excessive absenteeism, is a significant problem among

public safety personnel when it occurs. FMLA and any other leave or overtime abuses
result in several “rules following staff” being requested and/or mandated to work
additional shift work, thereby exacerbating leave-related issues and impacting overall
staffing and operations in the Division. Abuse can exacerbate decreased morale among
the workforce. It can also lead to increased costs for agencies due to overtime and
temporary staffing needs.
Light duty refers to the practice of assigning less physically demanding or administrative
tasks to employees who are temporarily unable to perform their regular duties due to
9
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional
staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 644-656. Ross,
M. W., & Hill, L. G. (2002). The relation of correctional officer attitudes to job stressors and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 29(6), 692-712.

injury, illness, or other medical conditions. It aims to ensure the employee's well-being
while still utilizing their skills and knowledge in a limited capacity. While LD can be
essential for promoting recovery and supporting injured or ill personnel, excessive
reliance on this practice can have far-reaching consequences.
From 2019-2022 LD averaged nearly 5,100 hours per year. Based on 1,411 NAWH per
Correction Officer, this is the equivalent of 3.6 positions lost to perform core duties and
responsibilities of the position. Moreover, of the 28 personnel that were on light duty
during the four-year period, more than half (57%) had more than one LD incident that
occurred.
While the totality of data regarding LD does not necessarily reflect widespread abuse, it
is a cause for concern given the overall staffing impact. The negative impacts of
excessive light duty are documented, and include:
Strained Workforce: Excessive light duty assignments can place an undue burden on the
remaining personnel who must fill the gaps left by those on restricted duties. This
increased workload can lead to exhaustion, stress, and decreased morale among active-
duty employees. Over time, it may result in burnout and a decline in the overall efficiency
of the workforce.
Limited Operational Capacity: Public safety agencies heavily rely on their personnel's
physical capabilities and agility to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies. When
a significant number of employees are assigned to light duty, the agency's operational
capacity can be significantly hampered. This reduction in available personnel can lead to
delayed response times, decreased coverage, and compromised public safety.
Financial Implications: Excessive light duty assignments can strain the financial
resources of public safety agencies. The cost of hiring additional personnel to fill the
gaps, providing overtime payments, or hiring temporary staff can create significant
financial burdens. Additionally, agencies may face increased insurance premiums due to
higher injury rates.
Reduced Skill Development: Assigning personnel to light duty for extended periods can
hinder their professional growth and skill development. Public safety agencies thrive on
continuous training and development programs to keep their personnel up to date with
the latest techniques and best practices. Limiting employees to light duty roles can inhibit
their ability to acquire new skills and knowledge, which can have long-term implications
for their effectiveness and career progression.

Public Perception: Excessive light duty use can influence public perception of the
competency and reliability of public safety agencies. Perceived lack of personnel
availability can erode trust and confidence in these vital services.
The following reflects areas that can be addressed to help minimize the various leave
abuse.
• Implement Clear Leave Policies - One of the most effective ways to address leave
abuse is to establish clear leave policies that specify the rules and procedures for
taking leave. Further, develop comprehensive policies and guidelines regarding
light duty assignments. Clearly define eligibility criteria, maximum duration, and
the types of tasks that can be assigned. These policies should be communicated
to all employees, and managers should ensure that they are consistently applied
through audit practices. The policies should also clearly outline the consequences
of leave abuse, including disciplinary action, loss of pay, and even termination in
extreme cases.
• Educate Employees on Leave Policies - Many cases of leave abuse may be

unintentional and due to a lack of understanding of leave policies. Employers can
address this by providing regular training and education to employees on leave
policies and procedures. This can help employees understand their rights and
responsibilities and reduce the likelihood of unintentional leave abuse. Regularly
review and update light duty policies to adapt to changing needs and address any
loopholes that may lead to abuse. Seek input from employees, supervisors, and
human resources to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
• Establish a Tracking System - Establishing a formalized tracking system for leave

requests and absences that provides timely and relevant data can help agencies
identify patterns of leave abuse and take appropriate action. This can also help
managers identify employees who may need additional support or intervention to
address underlying issues that may be causing excessive absenteeism.
Implement systems to monitor and track light duty assignments. Establish regular
check-ins and progress evaluations to ensure compliance with restrictions and
assess the employee's progress toward returning to full-duty status. Encourage
supervisors and employees to report any suspected cases of abuse or violations
of light duty policies.
• As Practical, Offer Flexibility - Offering flexible work arrangement such as flexible

scheduling, can help employees balance their work and personal responsibilities,
which may reduce the need for excessive absenteeism. However, managers
should ensure that such arrangements are granted fairly and consistently to avoid

the perception of favoritism or discrimination. Moreover, this is often difficult in a

Corrections environment which require fixed post shifts in many operations.
• Provide Support and Resources – Employees may resort to leave abuse due to
personal or work-related stress, mental health issues, or other challenges.
Agencies can address this by providing employees with support and resources,
such as counseling services, employee assistance programs, and access to
wellness programs. This can help employees address underlying issues that may
be contributing to leave abuse.
• Conduct Regular Audits - Regular audits of leave policies and procedures can help
agencies identify areas for improvement and ensure that policies are being
consistently applied. Audits can also help identify patterns of leave abuse and
enable agencies to take appropriate action. With respect to LD, require thorough
medical evaluations to determine an employee's ability to perform their regular
duties. Establish a standardized process for obtaining medical documentation,
including objective assessments and clear work restrictions. Regularly review and
verify the medical documentation to ensure it aligns with the assigned light duty
tasks.
• Enforce Consequences for FMLA and Other Leave Abuse – Irrespective of other
leave abuse resolutions noted above, they cannot be entirely successful unless
there are consequences for repeated leave abusers. This requires support from
the Corrections Division managers, police department executives, and the City’s
HR and City Attorney contingent. Practical approaches to address abuse include
assessing if personnel are “Fit for Duty” given excessive absenteeism. This fit-for-
duty description should be put in bargaining unit contractual language.
By implementing these strategies, the organization can address FMLA and light duty
abuse, promote responsible use of light duty assignments, and maintain a healthy and
productive workforce while effectively supporting injured or ill employees.
(2.3) Overtime Usage and Staff Operations Impact
Overtime was previously discussed in the context of budgetary approaches. This section
includes its impact on operations. The following table summarizes the historic overtime
use by classification and year.

Overtime (2017 – 2022)
Job Classification 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Central Control Room Operator 928 843 719 627 960 1,065
Classification Technician 0 0 0 119 80 252
Cook 427 556 907 867 455 703
Cook-PT 0 17 0 11 0 0
Corrections Captain 0 0 0 0 0
Corrections Lieutenant 124 43 181 127 170 165
Corrections Officer 10,401 11,711 12,977 13,766 12,107 11,002
Corrections Sergeant 999 1,050 1,019 2,145 2,391 3,773
Detention Center Support Supv 39 91 138 614 317 465
Detention Center Technician 1,943 1,902 2,383 2,680 2,249 3,209
Police Admin Specialist III 0 0 0 0 0 0
Police Business Analyst I 40 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Total 14,900 16,212 18,324 20,957 18,729 20,632
Overall overtime hours increased significantly between 2017 and 2022 and peaked in
2020. Increasing overtime patterns can illustrate many issues, including impacting the
amount of leave taken.
Using Correction Officer overtime as an illustration from 2017-2022, averaging overtime

hours worked (excluding the Covid-19 2020), approximately 70 staff worked 11,950
overtime hours annually. And while approximately half of this includes the mandatory
overtime payment given the 84-hour two-week work schedule, the remaining proportion
of overtime is required for shift coverage. Moreover, and clearly, not every member is
working an equivalent amount of overtime required—some work far more than others.,
This compounds overtime issues for those that do work these additional shifts. The six
year overtime average for Correction Officer is equivalent to 8.5 FTEs based on net annual
availability. When factoring in overtime pay this is approximately equivalent to 12
positions.
This overtime pattern is intensified in an examination of the data above for Corrections
Sergeants which shows a 277% increase in overtime from 2017 to 2022.
This level of overtime for staff is unsustainable and can lead to the necessity for
additional scheduled and unscheduled leave from staff, thereby impacting overall staffing
requirements (and further compounding overtime issues). Importantly, as shown in a
prior section, the fact that the City budgets more than 10% of salary for overtime is
reflective of a possible staffing issue in the Corrections Division, irrespective of a portion
of this being spent for the 84-hour schedule.

Many studies have noted the overall negative impacts of overtime. One of the most
significant negative impacts of excessive overtime is physical exhaustion. Correction
officers are required to be on their feet for long periods, and their work is often physically
demanding. Working excessive overtime can lead to physical fatigue, which can increase
the risk of accidents and injuries on the job. A study conducted by the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health found that correctional officers who worked more
than 50 hours per week had a higher risk of work-related injuries compared to those who
worked fewer hours. A study published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
found that staff who worked excessive overtime had higher levels of emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. These factors can
lead to burnout, which can impact job performance and overall well-being. In sum, various
studies demonstrate:
• Excessive overtime leads to more health problems.

• Excessive overtime leads to more workplace accidents.
• Excessive overtime decreases productivity.
• Excessive overtime leads to more absences and higher turnover.
In effect, excessive overtime in the Corrections Division is problematic. Through various

efforts noted, including fielding appropriate staffing levels, overtime can be dramatically
reduced.
(3) Conclusion
In summary, the impacts of various leave-related issue areas to include morale, leave and
overtime abuse, and the factors associated therewith ultimately influence the overall
number of staff available to perform Detention Center duties and responsibilities, and
fundamentally change the overall staff requirements needed.
Recommendations:
Develop staffing plans and operational protocols to minimize excessive overtime to

include maximum overtime hours permitted per staff member in each pay period.
Endeavor to develop annual overtime budgets and related expenses to not exceed 10%
of employee salaries. Strive to reduce overall overtime expenditures.
As described in this report, implement various approaches to minimize leave abuse,

particularly related to potential FMLA and light duty. This should include policy/procedure
revisitation, leave abuse tracking and auditing, and definitive consequences for repetitive
abuse to include “Unfit for Duty” rating.

To help curtail the potential outcomes related to low morale such as increased
absenteeism, turnover, decreased productivity, and officer vulnerability to health, welfare
and safety, implement operational and staffing changes described that should facilitate
morale improvements.
4. Jail Management Software
The current Jail Management Software System (JMS) is outdated, and vendor support
will be ceased in the next two years. Management and staff indicated that they are in the
process to find a replacement software system. With this in mind, the project team
summarized key functionalities of a new JMS that should be incorporated in the new
platform. Key software functions include:
• Centralized inmate management system that include all inmate records including
inmate personal details, criminal history, charges, classification (historic and
current), housing assignment, inmate complaints, and court appearances. All
inmate records should be digitized and stored in the system. The system should
also include inmate medical record management (e.g., medication distribution,
medical appointments, screenings, services provided, etc.).
• Provide security management for inmates and staff. Examples include inmate
movement, inmate checks completed by staff, incident reports (use of force, PREA
complaints, etc.), institutional emergencies, and other routine operational
approaches.
• Policy and procedure updates. All adopted policies and processes should be
stored in this system or linked to the Police Department’s policy database (e.g.,
Lexus Nexus of PowerDMS.).
• Inmate classification system that includes the classification questionnaire,

criteria, and thresholds. Also, the ability to automatically alert Classification staff
when a reclassification should be completed.
• Ability to track inmate communications, including phone calls, visitations (legal

and personal), and mail.
• Inmate financial management that includes inmate fiscal account (record of

inmate money at booking) and commissary accounts.
• The system should include reporting dashboards that provides real time analytics
and the ability to provide a variety of reports for management.

An updated JMS will improve operations and overall facility security. Operational
efficiencies would be achieved in the intake and release processes as the process should
transition to a digital format.
It is recommended that staff incorporate the features and functionalities list above as a
minimum starting point for their new jail management software system.
5. Administration
Administration is comprised of a Captain, Business Analyst, and two Police

Administrative Specialist (PAS).
The Captain is responsible for managing the division and oversight of the day-to-day
operations. The position is also responsible for the strategic planning and oversight of
the Division to meet the Police Department and City goals. Functions include planning,
developing, and implementation of work objectives, budgeting, personnel management,
and direct supervision of Lieutenants and PAS.
The Business Analyst provides business and administrative support including research,
data analyses, business planning, financial management, budget assistance, and special
projects. This includes reviewing contracts, monitoring expenditures, invoicing for
contracted bedspace, processing commissary billings, and performing related duties as
assigned.
The Police Administrative Specialists provide administrative support to the Division,

including processing timesheets/pay roll, pay invoices and creates purchase requisitions.
The current approach to the Administration team, in addition to the Administrative

Lieutenant and Sergeant under Support Services, four Lieutenants in Security, and Special
Programs Lieutenant is appropriate for the size of the organization. The Captain and six
Lieutenants comprise the executive team of the division and each position has unique
assignments to facilitate efficient and effective operations of the Corrections Division.
The Business Analyst and two PAS staff provide effective and sufficient administrative
and financial support to the Division, in addition to receiving support from the Police
Department and internal service providers at the City. The approach and assignment of
duties is appropriate.
It is recommended to maintain the current allocation of staff for the Division’s

administrative functions.

Sergeant). The total number of reports will be reduced by 3 when a Lead Cook position
is established. The Administrative Sergeant should provide direct supervision of at least
one of the functional areas, such as Classification.
The current organizational structure of Support Services is appropriate.
In Special Programs and Services, the Lieutenant and Sergeant split their supervision.
The Sergeant oversees programming staff, and the Lieutenant supervises the Officers
and Work Program Coordinators. This provides a span of control of 7 full time and 4 part
time for the Sergeant and 4 full time and 5 part time staff and the Sergeant for the
Lieutenant. While the span of control is 1 to 10 and 11 respectively, it is appropriate given
that 45% of the staff is part time. The organizational structure for Special Programs and
Services is appropriate and aligns similarly to other functional areas within the Division.
The current organizational structure and spans of control for the Corrections Division
aligns with best practice guidelines, groups similar functions together, and is consistent
between teams/functional areas. There are no recommended changes to the current
organizational structure except for minor reclassifications of leads as noted in previous
chapters.
Recommendation:
Maintain the current organizational structure of the Corrections Division.

6. Inmate Population Projections

To project the future inmate population for individuals who are arrested in or held on City
of Henderson related offenses, the project team analyzed historic data sets of the
Detention Center. The project team reviewed both Henderson and contracted inmate
population trends but focused on projecting only Henderson specific inmates as this is
the minimum required to be processed and housed by the City. The number of contracted
inmates is at the discretion of other entities and availability of bedspace in the Henderson
Detention Center.
1. Historic Henderson Average Daily Population.
The project team was provided with historic inmate population for each month between
January 2012 and December 2022. The following table summarizes historic average
daily population for both Henderson and contracted inmates.
Historic Average Daily Population
Year Contract ADP Henderson ADP Total ADP

2012 334 182 516
2013 289 188 477
2014 327 180 508
2015 325 174 498
2016 287 231 518
2017 259 241 500
2018 242 257 499
2019 219 247 467
2020 182 175 357
2021 81 169 250
2022 59 187 246
The total average daily population has dropped to less than half between 2012 and 2022.
This is a result of less contracted inmates being housed in Henderson. Henderson
inmates have increased slightly over the 10 year period but peaked in 2018 at 257
inmates. The peak is approximately 37% higher than the 2022 average daily population.
The following graph presents the historic population trends.

• Models 4 & 5 - Historical Trend Percentage and Number Increase calculate the
total percentage or number change from the beginning point to the end point of
the historical data series. The annual percentage (or number) increase rate used
in the model was applied to the base year (2022) and subsequent years to
calculate future annual average daily population Henderson inmates.
• Model 6 - Mean Deviation compares the peak year population to the average from
the historic data. The models are standardized by dividing the number of years
observed. The mean deviation model shows the high points in most models as it
is projected forward.
• Model 7 - Historical Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) uses the historic
annual growth rates to determine a percentage of growth. Often used in financial
forecasting, the CAGR is applied to the projection end date of 2043.
Time Series Models: Following is a description of the three statistical models applied.
Note that Time Series Model projections are only used if their r-squared value is above
0.8. This is a correlation of how strong the historic and projected data fit within the
model’s parameters.
• Model 8 - Linear Regression determines a best fit line (for ADP) to 2043

considering the historic ADP data over the time period.
• Model 9 - Multiple Regression determines a best fit line to 2043 considering the
historic ADP data over time and Henderson population.
• Model 10 – Exponential Smoothing ARIMA identifies levels and trends by
smoothing the data points (ADP) to decrease irregularity and adds a seasonality
factor. The seasonal indexes are obtained by smoothing seasonal patterns in the
historical data. The exponential smoothing model gives older historic data
progressively-less weight while new historic data is weighted more. A damping
value of 0.9 was used.
The following table presents the historical data for ADP, population, per capita ratios, and
data trends.

The combined peaking and classification factor of 25% was used to determine the total
bedspace needs. The peaking and classification factor is added to the projected ADP to
determine total bedspace needs for Henderson inmates. The following table summarizes
the total bedspace needs for the City of Henderson.
Bedspace Needs
2023 2028 2033 2038 2043

Average Daily Population 199 215 229 243 257
Classification Factor (15%) 30 32 34 36 39
Peaking Factor (10%) 20 22 23 24 26
Total Beds 249 269 286 304 321
In 2043, a total of 321 beds are needed in the Henderson Detention Center. The current
Detention Center is adequately sized for the 20 year projected inmate needs.

7. Contract and Fiscal Analysis

This chapter provides various analyses of the Detention Center’s budgetary and fiscal
operations, including contract service opportunities.
1. Contract Services
Henderson requested during project scope development an additional task be added.

Beyond various existing contract services reviews, exploring the opportunity to contract
out detention services to an adjoining jurisdiction was requested. In addition to assessing
the feasibility of contracting bedspace to other agencies, the evaluation of housing
Henderson inmates in other nearby jurisdictions was performed. If likely partners were
identified, then the inclusion of a “transport element” would be included in the analysis.
In effect, this scenario would downsize or close jail operations in the City.
As part of this effort, three potential partners were identified and include:
• North Las Vegas Community Correctional Center (NLVCCC) - Servicing the

population of North Las Vegas which is approximately 80% the size of Henderson,
NLVCCC is located at 2332 Constitution Way in the city, approximately 17 miles
from the Henderson PD.
• Las Vegas Detention Center (LVDC) - Providing services to the city of Las Vegas,
the Las Vegas Detention Center houses approximately 430 inmates per day at the
facility located at 3200 Stewart Avenue in the city. It is approximately 14 miles
from the Henderson PD.
• Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) – Providing services in the metropolitan

area of Las Vegas (county), and houses approximately 2,700 inmates per day. The
address is 330 S Casino Center Blvd which is approximately 16 miles from the
Henderson PD.
(1) Contact Outcomes – No Interest
In an effort to facilitate conversation, the City’s Finance project manager on this

engagement initially reached out to the three Centers to explore initial interest. North Las
Vegas and Las Vegas city and detention contacts expressed no interest in providing
contract service delivery for detention services, citing various reasons, not the least of
which was current staffing shortages and the impact on existing operations. Both parties
did not see any change in their position over the medium or longer term; consequently,
they were eliminated from consideration.

(2) Contact Outcomes – Potential Interest
The Clark County Detention Center was the only potential partner willing to have a
conversation surrounding possible contract service provision to the City of Henderson. A
meeting was facilitated between Henderson’s project manager, Matrix Consulting Group,
and executives from CCDC and the County. The outcome of this meeting can be
summarized as follows:
• CCDC has no short-term interest in providing full contract detention services to

Henderson given current operational status as well as a comprehensive
rehabilitation and renovation of facilities that will not conclude until a projected
fiscal year 2026 - 27.
• CCDC could accommodate a modest number of Henderson inmates, based upon

some “classification protocol” in the near term if the city of Henderson were
interested. This would be a small portion of inmates compared to Henderson’s
average daily jail population. Fees for service would be negotiated and range from
$125 to $245 per inmate per day. Transportation services to the CCDC are not
included and would be provided by Henderson or under separate arrangement.
In summary, the CCDC cannot provide full detention services to Henderson in the
foreseeable future and can only accommodate a small portion of Henderson inmates if
there was collective interest.
(3) Contracting Additional Bedspace in Henderson
The number of contracted inmates has declined dramatically over the past few years. The
majority of this decrease is a result of less ICE housed in the facility. This is likely are
result of a change in the approach to arresting and securely holding individuals on
immigration changes with the current presidential administration. Also, other facilities
that have available contracted bedspace have come online and may be taking ICE
inmates versus utilizing Henderson. Overall, the total number of contracted inmates has
significantly reduced.
The City should consider proactively outreach to ICE to develop an understanding of the
recent reduction in the number of individuals residing in Henderson. Additionally, the City
should engage with the U.S. Marshall Service to see if they have a need for beds. This
understanding is important as ICE has historically been a predominate user of available
bedspace. Based on the result of this conversation, it will influence the number of
available beds for other jurisdictions to rent.

In the event that ICE will have reduced use of Henderson bedspace, then the City should
reach out to the Nevada Department of Corrections to gauge their interest in renting beds.
This maybe the only option for increased bedspace rentals based on the lack of need in
other nearby local jurisdictions that do not already contract with Henderson.
(4) Conclusion
Upon obtaining information from the Clark County Detention Center, the City of
Henderson did some further internal follow-up with policy and city executive stakeholders
and identified there was no interest in partial contracting out of inmate services. As a
result, there is no solution for housing Henderson inmates in other nearby jurisdictions in
the foreseeable future.
Recommendations:
Continue to provide in-house detention services at Henderson. As part of a five-year

strategic planning horizon, upon the conclusion of Clark County Detention Centers’
rehabilitation capital improvement projects, further explore potential contract
opportunities with CCDC.
The City should engage ICE and the U.S. Marshals to determine the utilization of available
bedspace. Upon this determination, the City may need to reach out to Nevada Department
of Corrections to gauge their interest/need for bedspace.
2. Jail Fiscal Analysis
The proposal tasks included an analysis to determine the full cost associated with
housing inmates at the Detention Center. The City has never conducted an external
analysis of its jail rates to understand the full cost of providing jail services. The City
currently assesses different jail rates for inmates based upon pre-established contracts.
The following table shows the current “daily occupancy” jail rates in use by the City:
Agency Current Rate

ICE $135.00
Boulder City $126.04
Moapa Band $121.87
Paiute Tribe $107.35
Clark County $111.97
These rates are referenced later in comparison to the fully loaded costs calculated in the
following sections.

(1) Direct Expenditures
In order to calculate the full cost associated with inmates, the project team collected
information regarding the Corrections Division’s direct and indirect expenditures. The City
has a separate cost center for the “Detention Center” (Department #2104). The following
table shows by major expense category the total FY22 budgeted expenditures and actual
expenditures for the Division:
Cost Category FY22 Budget FY22 Actual Expenses

Salary $13,307,262 $13,534,121
Benefits $7,702,055 $8,025,102
Contract Maintenance $52,000 $33,363
Professional Services $38,500 $43,109
Prisoner Care Supplies $56,500 $50,901
Contract Services Medical $3,201,000 $2,718,794
Facilities Repairs & Maint. $2,500 $2,275
Equipment Repairs & Maint. $12,214 $11,055
Hydrant Repair $0 $95
Clothing & Protective Gear $3,200 $3,078
Dues, Fees, Memberships $500 $300
Extradition costs $15,000 $0
Fees, Permits, Licenses $1,100 $1,092
Food costs $582,102 $446,694
Travel $19,714 $18,963
Minor Computer Equipment $1,300 $451
Minor Equipment $82,653 $24,990
Operating Expenses $22,550 $18,632
Operating Materials $15,000 $13,526
Postage & Freight $150 $131
Printing/Copying/Newsletters $4,000 $2,840
Training & Tuition $10,038 $5,801
Safety Expense & Supplies $34,000 $26,829
Chemicals $27,811 $16,688
City Shop Charges $80,346 $80,346
PBX Internal Charges $70,925 $70,925
Computer License Internal Charges $299,406 $299,406
Total $25,641,826 $25,449,506
Overall, the total direct adopted budget for the Jail was $25.6 million compared to $25.4
million in actual expenses incurred. Approximately $21 million or 82% of the budgeted
expenditures are personnel or $21.6 million or 85% of the total expenses incurred are
personnel related. The next largest source of expenditures for the Division are in relation
to Medical ($3.2 or $2.7 million) and Food costs ($582,000 or $447,000).
In reviewing the budget and expenses for the Corrections Division, the project team also
ensured that all expenses (personnel and operating) were directly in relation to inmates.

Of the project codes noted in the Division’s expenses, there were two codes identified that
were not in relation to inmates or jail operations – “LVMPD Special Event” and “Holiday
Patrol Initiative”. Those two project codes have no costs in the budget but represent
approximately $1,298. Therefore, the overall total direct jail budget for FY22 is still
$25,641,826; however, the FY22 actual expenses are $25,448,208.
(2) Indirect Expenditures
In addition to the direct expenditures incurred by the Division there are indirect expenses
related to its operations. These expenses are in relation to Citywide operations such as
support from Human Resources, Building Maintenance, Finance, etc. As the primary
purpose of the jail rate analysis is to apply these rates to federal, state, or other
intergovernmental agencies, the project team followed indirect cost guidelines from the
Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) when calculating the fees. These
expenses are fairly standard to be considered indirect, as in order for the Division to
continue to provide services, it needs to ensure that Human Resources hires staff, City
Clerk maintains records, City Manager provides policy direction, IT provides support to
the technology and systems, etc. The following table shows the City’s FY22 Actual
Expenses by major indirect department:
Department FY22 Actual Expenses

City Clerk $1,983,054
City Manager $2,389,503
Human Resources $3,858,392
City Attorney $3,918,026
Department of Information Technology $9,136,640
Finance $6,676,691
Building Maintenance $11,407,685
Internal Audit $620,052
TOTAL $39,990,043
Based upon the FY22 Actual Expenses, the total Citywide indirect expenses are $39.99
million. The City does not currently allocate these expenditures to the Corrections
Division. As such, the project team utilized the $39.99 million and divided it by the total
number of employees within the City to calculate the proportionate indirect cost per
employee. The use of employees serves as a proxy to represent the level of indirect
support or effort associated with Correction Division operations. The following graphic
shows the calculation for the indirect cost per Citywide FTE:
Total Indirect Costs for the City $39,990,043

= $15,542 per FTE
Total FTE 2,573

The total indirect cost per Citywide full-time employee is approximately $15,542. The
$15,542 is multiplied against the total number of employees at the Correction Division to
calculate the operations proportionate indirect cost, which is $1,958,315. The $1.95
million is added to the Correction Division’s annual direct expenses ($25.6 or $25.4
million) to determine the fully loaded cost associated with Detention Center operations.
(3) Jail Rates
In order to calculate jail rates, the total costs associated with Division operations is
divided by the average daily population. The project team collected information regarding
the average daily population for the last five fiscal years:
Fiscal Year Average Daily Population (ADP)

FY18 500
FY19 498
FY20 410
FY21 303
FY22 219
5-yr average 386
3-yr average 267
Utilizing the previous five years’ data captures Pre-COVID-19 levels of operations, the
COVID-19 levels, and some post-COVID-19 levels. As it can be seen the overall average
daily population for the Division has consistently been declining. If we utilize a 5 year
average the average daily population is approximately 386; whereas the prior 3 years
(COVID-19 years) there is an average daily population of 267.
Due to the minimal difference between budgeted expenditures and actual expenditures,
the project team decided to utilize the actual expenditures to calculate the jail rate. This
approach is in compliance with federally accepted accounting principles as the rate is
then based upon actual expenses incurred. The total expenditures associated with Jail
operations was divided by the 5-year average of ADP to calculate the rate. The following
table shows the calculation based on the 5-year average and FY22 actual expenditures:
Category Direct Indirect Total

FY22 Actual Exp. $25,448,208 $1,958,315 $27,406,523
ADP – 5-yr average 386 386 386
Inmate Rate $181 $14 $195
Based upon FY22 Actual Expenditures and the 5-year average, the full cost associated
with the inmate per day is approximately $195 per day. However, if the 3-year average
were to be utilized, the following table shows the calculation:

Category Direct Indirect Total

FY22 Actual Exp. $25,448,208 $1,958,315 $27,406,523
ADP – 3-yr average 267 267 267
Inmate Rate $261 $20 $281
The use of the 3-year average increases the cost per inmate from $195 to $281, an $86
difference. This indicates that the lower the average daily population, the higher the
inmate rate must be in order to recover the costs associated with Detention Center
operations.
The project team created several scenarios to determine the potential daily bed rate if the
number of inmates increase. The following table summarizes the estimated daily rate
based on different average daily population.
Cost12 $27,406,523 $28,307,773 $29,209,023 $29,300,273 $29,391,523

Inmate Population 350 400 450 500 550
Inmate Rate $215 $194 $178 $161 $146
Because of the recent downward trend in ADP, combined with the inmate population
projections described in a separate chapter, the $281 is a better indicator of the full cost
associated per inmate per day for Division operations. The following table shows the
City’s current rate, the full cost calculated, the difference, and the level of costs being
recovered:
Agency Current Rate Full Cost Difference Recovery %

ICE $135.00 $281 ($146) 48%
Boulder City $126.04 $281 ($155) 45%
Moapa Band $121.87 $281 ($159) 43%
Paiute Tribe $107.35 $281 ($174) 38%
Clark County $111.97 $281 ($169) 40%
The full cost associated with the Jail is the same for each inmate regardless of the
agency, as all costs are related to all inmates. There are no specific costs only incurred in
relation to a specific agency. On average, the cost recovery for the City varies between
38% for Paiute Tribe to a high of 48% for ICE inmates.
It is important to note that this calculation shows the maximum justifiable rate associated
with each inmate. The actual rate that can be assessed can vary based upon pre-
established agreements or contracts.
12Cost estimates based on opening one additional housing pod at 400 ADP and a second pod at
450 ADP and 6 FTEs per housing pod. It is assumed that daily inmate meal cost is $5 per day.
(4) Cost Recovery
In addition to calculating the jail rate, the project team also reviewed the revenues and
expenses for the last several years for the Division to review the overall cost recovery. The
following table shows the total revenue, direct expenses, net expense, and cost recovery
for the last three fiscal years:
Category FY20 FY21 FY22

Total Revenue $7,860,158 $6,644,994 $2,605,232
Total CC Expenses $24,165,401 $25,377,524 $25,449,506
Net ($16,305,243) ($18,732,530) ($22,844,274)
Cost Recovery % 33% 26% 10%
For the last three years the cost recovery has consistently declined for the Detention
Center, coinciding with the decline in average daily population. The lower cost recovery
percentages are influenced by the current rate agreements with the different agencies in
conjunction with fewer inmates.
The largest proportion of the revenue (on average 83%) is associated with ICE inmates.
Therefore, changing the ICE rate is going to have the largest impact on the City’s ability to
generate additional revenue and increase its cost recovery.
(5) Conclusion
The City should review this fiscal analysis and determine where appropriate to update its
current inmate rates to allow for greater cost recovery. Allowing for greater cost recovery
will allow the City to ensure that the costs associated with the Detention Center
contracted operations are reasonably offset.
Additionally, many rate agreements are multi-year and the City should ensure that any
multi-year agreements include an annual escalation factor to capture annual cost
increases (salaries, benefits, operating expenses, etc.). This will ensure that once the City
determines its cost recovery goal or target it can maintain that target.
Lastly, the rate that has been calculated is representative of a snapshot in time.
Importantly, it does not reflect operational and staffing changes noted in this report. As
costs change due to general cost increases or adding or reducing staff, the full cost
associated with jail rate operations will also shift. The City should ensure that its
reviewing these costs every 3-5 years to ensure that it is reflective of the current jail
expenses as well as average daily population.

Recommendations:
The City should review the full cost associated with Detention Center operations and
where appropriate update its rate agreements with other agencies to allow for greater
cost recovery.
If continuing to utilize multi-year agreements, the City should ensure that an annual
escalator is built into the contract to ensure that cost recovery targets are maintained,
and rates increase based upon cost increases.
The City should review the jail rate analysis every 3-5 years to ensure that the full cost
being used as the baseline for agreements is reflective of the most up-to-date costs and
average daily population.

8. Facility Needs
As part of this engagement, the project team reviewed the current facility design and
layout. This exercise was intended to review the facility design and how it impacts
operations and if there were an additional opportunities to modify the facility to improve
operational efficiencies, safety, and security. The following subsections outline the
findings:
1. Facility Conditions
During the site visit in September 2022, the project team spent three days onsite in the
Detention Center. Staff provided several tours of the facility at different times of the days
to observe the operations and conditions of the facility. The following key observations
were made:
• The facility is in general good to excellent condition, with no noticeable

maintenance issues observed.
• The facility was clean and well maintained. No graffiti or other significant markings
or defacing was noticed inside or outside the facility. Also, the facility did not have
any obnoxious or obvious odors outside of the kitchen (food preparation) and a
minor smell in the property room that is consistent in most detention centers.
• The overall appearance of the facility was in good working conditions and the
building was orderly. This included a well organized supply room, inmate property
storage, inmate uniform/laundry area, and kitchen area. The only concern was
bulk food storage was located in the hallway, as a recent delivery had occurred and
there was not sufficient storage capacity. This was a temporary solution due to a
recent delivery and inmates are escorted in this area.
• The exterior of the building was well maintained and clean. There was adequate
signage indicating the Detention Center, the public entrance, and after our payment
window.
The Henderson Detention Center is well maintained and excellent condition considering
its age.
2. Design Challenges and Modifications
The last major facility renovation and expansion was completed around 2010. Since then,
the average daily population has decreased but the number of individuals who are
classified as a higher custody and/or identified as having a mental health/illness

designation has increased. Individuals classified as higher custody and those with
mental health issues impact operations and the facility design.
The following challenges were noted with the current facility design.
• The intake area was originally designed to be a combination of open holding and
single/group holding cells. This poses several challenges with the ability to
process individuals who have mental health issues or are combative. There are
not enough single (4) and safety cells (3) available to meet the needs for intake.
This is especially an issue when there are no beds available for these individuals
in the housing unit or individuals are uncooperative and cannot be fully booked.
Operation of the MHU would help alleviate this issue, along with the addition of
more single and safety cells in booking.
• The segregation housing unit is often at capacity and does not provide sufficient
capacity to house maximum security or segregated classified inmates. Some of
these inmates may be housed in MHU if the unit was operational.
This provides the safe passage of meals without opening the cell and allows
officers to secure the inmate prior to opening the door when they need.
• Pods 3 and 4 are the only housing unit that can be classified as true direct
supervision with the housing officer post located in the housing unit. However,
there is the ability for indirect supervision with the officer control room located
between both sides of the pod. Also, these two pods have the outdoor recreation
area attached to the Unit that is observable from the housing officer.
• Pods 1 and 2 are classified as indirect supervision as the unit is primarily observed
from the control room located between the two units. There is limited direct
access to the outdoor recreation areas, and they are not observable from the
housing unit.
• The Medical Housing Unit (MHU) is located in close proximity to the intake area
but not directly connected to it. Ideally, it would have a direct connection so that
medical staff could easily move between intake screening and the MHU. However,
there is a corridor that connects to the MHU that connects to the officer booking
area and has direct access to the vehicle sallyport. This design prevents the
booking area from being locked down when medical transport is needed.
• For inmate release, Correction Officers must escort the individual through the
vehicle sallyport to the exterior (pedestrian) door for release. The current

operational approach requires the officer to retrieve their firearm in the sallyport
lockbox prior to opening the exterior door. If there was a secure walkway in the
vehicle sallyport and an interlock /vestibule door from the walkway to the exterior
door this would prevent the need for the officer to escort the individual being
released. Except when the individual has large property that must be retrieved
outside the conditioned jail area.
With the exception of the limitation of the number of individual cells in booking and
housing door food slots none of the other issues are of significant concern. Although
each issue does impact operational approaches and efficiencies. The following
modifications should be considered to improve operations.
• When the recommendation and implementation to staff the MHU with a Correction
Officer, this should help alleviate many of the issues related to cell availability in
the booking area. MHU provides 10 additional beds for individuals who need more
intense supervision and medical/mental care. A dedicated officer post in MHU will
provide the ability to move inmates who require more intensive supervision from
booking to MHU.
An alternative would be to expand the intake area to the West, adjacent to the
janitor closet beside the medical triage office. Expansion would move the medical
triage area and allow for a connection to MHU. Then the medical triage,
processing area, and change out rooms could be converted to group holding cells
and the current group holding cells renovated to single/padded cells. This
renovation/expansion would provide approximately 10 to 15 additional single
cells. The expansion and renovation option should be evaluated after the MHU has
been fully operational for a few months to determine if it is still needed.
• A portion of cell doors should be replaced with food slots / cuff ports to allow for
greater flexibility for housing high risk and special needs inmates. Approximately
20% of the cell doors in each housing unit should include the food slot/cuff ports.
This will expand the number of cells where individuals who pose a risk to
themselves and staff can be housed. This would improve classification
approaches and provide more room to house keep separates and reduce the need
to congregate these individuals mostly to Housing Pod 2.
• Create a secure release corridor. This will improve operational efficiencies so that
officers do not have to escort all individuals to the exterior. An officer would escort
the inmate to the secure door to the release corridor. The inmate would walk to the
exterior door interlock vestibule and central control would control both doors.

Newly constructed detention centers include release corridors that have an

interlock vestibule so that officers do not have to escort individuals to the exterior.
These facility changes would improve overall operational efficiency and effectiveness for
staff and improve security and safety in the facility.
Recommendations:
Replace approximately 20% of the doors in each housing unit with doors that incorporate
a food tray pass or cuff port.
After the reutilization of the Medical Housing Unit, access the needs in intake related to
inmates needing single/padded cells. If the need still exists, expand the intake area west
of the medical triage area to move some medical screening and inmate processing
functions to this addition and renovate the existing intake area to expand the number of
single and padded cells.
Construct a secure release corridor that includes an interlock vestibule with the exterior
door for releasing inmates and modify operational approaches to reduce the number of
escorted releases.

Appendix A: Descriptive Profile
1. Introduction
The following descriptive profile outlines the organization, structure, staffing, and historic
workload of the Henderson Detention Center, Corrections Division (referred to as
Corrections Division in this document.) The information contained in the profile was
developed through a number of interviews conducted with Henderson Police Department
Corrections Division staff as well as supporting City personnel. We interviewed managers,
supervisors, and line-level staff in the Division.
It is important to note that the primary objective of this profile was to review and confirm
our current understanding of the staffing and operations of the Division. Consequently,
analysis or findings are not contained in this document.
The structure of the profile is as follows:
• The organizational structure of the Corrections Division.

• High level descriptions of each functional group.
• The number of authorized (budgeted) positions by rank or classification assigned
to each functional area. Including the identification of vacancies.
• The roles, objectives, and responsibilities of each functional area.
• Current fixed post staffing plan.
• Historic data trends of the Division.
The profile was the first deliverable of this project. The profile helped to serve as a
foundation for our assumptions on staffing and organizational structure and serve as the
basis for future analysis of operations and staffing. This profile is accurate as of
December 14, 2022.

Functional Group Auth. Position Description
Administrative 1 Business Analyst I • The Analyst provides business and

Support Staff administrative support including research, data
analyses, business planning, financial
management, budget assistance, and special
projects. This includes reviewing contracts,
monitoring expenditures, invoicing for
contracted bedspace, processing commissary
billings, and performing related duties as
assigned.
2 PAS III (Vacant) • The PAS provides administrative support to
the Division, including processing
timesheets/pay roll, pay invoices and creates
purchase requisitions.
Security Staff 4 Lieutenant • Lieutenants are responsible for overall shift

operations on assigned Watch. Supervise shift
sergeants; approve payroll; ID staff for sick
leave coverage; conduct performance reviews;
review use of force reports; address various
issues; perform a variety of special
assignments in support of Division to include
such projects as training, CERT, JMS upgrade,
fleet, law library, etc.
8 Sergeant • Sergeants are responsible for oversight of the
jail daily shift operations. This includes
reviewing inmate information prior to release,
serving as the duty officer, and assisting
officer with jail operations. Two sergeants are
assigned to each shift with one overseeing
Booking and the other over housing units.
75 Correction Officer • Corrections Officers are responsible for the
(5 Vacancies) safety and security of detainees in the
Detention Center. They are responsible for the
booking of arrestees into the custody of the
detention. Officers conducts regular rounds,
facilitates detainee movement, monitors
various cameras, provides meal services and
related clean-up to detainees, release inmates,
and performs other duties as assigned.
Support in escorting inmates for court
proceedings, transportation of inmates, and
providing security and services in the
Detention Center lobby.
Support Services 1 Admn. Lieutenant • Administrative Lt. provides oversight of

Support Services. Liaison to ICE, US Marshals
1 Admn. Sergeant and Medical contract. Oversees kitchen,
accreditation, classifications, central control

room, DCT ops. And directly supervise DCSS

and classifications personnel. Perform special
projects, as assigned.
2 DC Support • Detention Center Support Supervisors
Supervisor supervise DCT and Central Control personnel.
Manage work schedules; schedule OT;
background vendors; approve payroll; manage
special projects such as cameras, commissary
and video telephone system; supervise staff
and address related issues; other duties as
assigned.
• Detention Center Technicians sit in the
13 Detention Center “bullpen” of the Center’s booking area.
Technician Perform a variety of tasks related to the
(3 vacancies) Booking, Sentencing and Release process.
Work with PremierOne, OffenderTrack,
Livescan and NIBERS systems, run wants and
warrants; processes booking and release data
in systems; responds to numerous telephone
inquiries; manage teletypes; interacts with
justice and municipal courts. Essentially
manages inmate information from booking to
release.
8 Central Control • Central Control Room Operator (CCRO) are
Room Operator responsible for operating all interior and
exterior secured doors. Monitor inmate and
staff movement through camera systems.
Minimum staffing of 1, with 2 staff assigned
per shift Monday – Friday. One staff assigned
Sat/Sun.
• Classification personnel classify all inmates
4 Classification entering the Center based on risk and housing
Technician (2 assignment. Participated in disciplinary
vacancies) hearings; select and track time of inmate
workers; use Nevada Pre-Trial Risk to assess
1 Classification CO own recognizance and 48-hour release; re-
assess classification every 2-3 weeks, as time
available. One Correction Officer assists with
classifications and spends the other in part-
time Intelligence.
• Accreditation CO focuses on maintaining
1 Accreditation CO policy and procedure, serves as point of
contact for inspection, PREA coordinator,
safety officer, and compliance with contract
conditions.

4 FT, Cooks • Responsible for operating the kitchen, ordering

2 PT and preparing food for inmates and staff.
Special 1 Lieutenant • The Lieutenant oversees the daily operations

Programs and of the SPS team and provides case and
Services administrative support as needed. Responsible
for extradition team, warrants, contract
management, report review, and new officer
training program.
• The Sergeant oversees programming staff and
1 Sergeant focuses on ensuring municipal court
conditions are meet for program participants,
oversees the drug testing program.
2 (FT) Corrections Officer
• SSOs are responsible for participant case
2 (PT) SSO Officer (Sworn) management and oversight of work crews and
drug and alcohol testing programs. CO staff
provide field monitoring and various case
management tasks. Part time staff limited to
19 hours per week and work either Wed/Thu or
Sun/Mon. Full time staff Mon – Thu.
2 (FT) Work Program
• Coordinators focus on processing offender
3 (PT) Coordinators (1 FT 2
documentation, overseeing in-house
PT vacancy)
drug/alcohol testing, and other administrative
case related duties.
1 Program Supervisor • Supervisor oversees the intake process for
newly assigned offenders, including
processing documentation and set up for GPS
and alcohol monitoring systems and payment
plans.
4 Case Specialist • Specialists ensure compliance with conditions
of participation, represent defendants in court,
follow-up for non-payments, investigation
compliance violations, serve violation notices.
2 Administrative Clerk • Clerks assist with defendant intake, payment
(1 vacant) processing, answering phones, schedule
appointments, front window support and
4 Admin. Asst. (PT) process documents. Limited to 19 hours per
week. P/T Admin. Asst. set-up appointments
for Counsellors, and scan documents.
Medical • The City contracts with NaphCare to provided

(Contract service medical service to the Detention Center. This
by NaphCare) includes a combination of medical,
psychological, and dental services to inmates.

Health Services • 40 hours per week.

Administrator
Director of Nursing • 40 hours per week.
Medical Director • 4 hours per week.
Nurse Practitioner • 32 hours / 4 days per week.
Registered Nurse • 24 / 7 one per shift.
Licensed Practical • 24/7, 2 per shift.
Nurse
Psychologist • 12 hours per week.
Licensed Clinical • 72 hours total per week, 2 staff.
Services Worker
Medical Assistant • 40 hours per week.
Administrative • 40 hours per week.
Assistant
Dentist / Dental • 4 hours per week.
Assistant
(2) Fixed Post Staffing Plan
Security posts are staffed by Correction Officers. Correction Officers work 12-hour shifts,
that begin . The following table summarizes the fixed post staffing
plan by shift.

3. Personnel and ADP Trends

This section of the profile will summarize key workload and personnel data. This will
include an overview of historic overtime, net annual work hour calculation, and inmate
trends.
1. Net Annual Work Hour Analysis
A key component that will be used in the staffing and resource analysis is staffs’
availability. Staffs’ availability is translated into net annual work hours that accounts for
the time that staff is not available to work their assigned shift. Net availability takes into
account staffs’ leave usage (e.g., vacation, FMLA, sick leave, bereavement, military leave,
etc.), training, and other administrative duties. Net annual work hours (NAWH) is
calculated based on leave averages for Correction Officers and Sergeants.
The following table summarizes historic leave averages by type from 2017 to 2021.
Historic Leave Data (CO)
2017 Avg. 2018 Avg. 2019 Avg. 2020 Avg. 2021 Avg.
Leave/OT Detail Type Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Annual Admin Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0
Special Leave 7.7 12.8 0.8 0.4 11.1
Bereavement Pay 3.4 4.3 3.9 2.4 5.5
Taken Compensatory Time 47.6 47.9 50.5 43.7 65.4
Holiday Banked Taken Police 50.1 46.6 48.1 94.0 80.6
Leave W/O Pay Disciplinary Act 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3
Leave Without Pay 3.4 2.2 1.0 0.2 2.7
Military Leave 4.2 10.6 9.8 8.3 9.2
Sick Pay 76.7 80.9 90.3 91.9 129.1
Sick Incentive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Union Leave Paid 0.8 1.3 1.0 4.3 1.9
Vacation 117.9 128.5 113.0 93.4 138.0
Total Leave 312.5 335.4 318.9 363.1 443.7

Historic Leave Data (Sergeant)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
Leave/OT Detail Type Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Annual Admin Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 8.0
Special Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bereavement Pay 10.0 6.7 9.0 5.1 8.4
Taken Compensatory Time 7.0 0.3 3.3 7.4 3.6
Holiday Banked Taken Police 36.2 38.3 28.9 96.7 84.7
Leave W/O Pay Disciplinary Act 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
Leave Without Pay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Military Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sick Pay 8.6 118.6 69.8 41.8 112.9
Sick Incentive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Union Leave Paid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4
Vacation 145.6 136.5 220.5 164.5 137.3
Total Leave 207.4 300.4 331.4 327.0 370.0
The following table calculates the net annual work hours per officer and sergeant based
on historic leave data. Training, light duty, and on shift breaks was excluded from this
calculation. Training has primarily been provided through the use overtime. A five-year
average for leave was used to smooth any variations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Net Annual Work Hour Calculation (CO)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Base Annual Work Hours 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080
Average Annual Leave Hours 312.5 335.4 318.9 363.1 443.7
Net Annual Work Hours 1,767.5 1,744.6 1,761.1 1,716.9 1,636.3
Net annual work hours fluctuated between 1,636 and 1,767 hours annually for Correction
Officers.
Net Annual Work Hour Calculation (Sergeant)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Base Annual Work Hours 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080
Average Annual Leave Hours 207.4 300.4 331.4 327.0 370.0
Net Annual Work Hours 1,872.6 1,779.6 1,748.6 1,753.0 1,710.0

Net annual work hours fluctuated between 1,710 and 1,872 hours annually for Correction
Sergeants.
2. Overtime
Overtime data was provided to the project team, the following table summarizes the
historic overtime use by classification and year.
Overtime (2019 – 2021)
Job Classification 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Central Control Room Operator 927.6 842.5 719.3 626.6 959.5
Classification Technician 0.0 0.0 0.0 119.0 80.0
Cook 427.0 555.6 906.5 867.4 455.3
Cook-PT 0.0 17.0 0.0 11.0 0.0
Corrections Captain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Corrections Lieutenant 123.7 42.9 181.2 127.0 169.5
Corrections Officer 10,401.1 11,710.5 12,977.4 13,766.2 12,107.1
Corrections Sergeant 998.7 1,049.9 1,018.6 2,145.4 2,391.3
Detention Center Support Supv 38.8 91.3 137.9 614.2 317.4
Detention Center Technician 1,943.3 1,901.8 2,382.6 2,679.9 2,249.1
Police Admin Specialist III 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Police Business Analyst I 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Total 14,900.2 16,211.5 18,323.5 20,956.7 18,729.2
Overall overtime hours increased significantly between 2017 and 2021 and peaked in
2020. Overtime increased 25.7% between 2017 and 2021.
3. Light Duty
Officers who are on light duty impacts the ability to staff the Detention Center. The
following table summarizes the total hours of staff assigned to light duty (LD) and
workers compensation light duty (WD).
Total Light Duty Hours
Type 2019 2020 2021

LD Frequency 43.0 98.0 529.0
LD Hours 363.0 948.5 5,477.8
WD Frequency 263.0 239.0 369.0
WD Hours 2,582.8 2,180.5 3,522.3
Total Freq. 306.0 337.0 898.0
Total Hours 2,945.8 3,129.0 9,000.0

Total light duty hours tripled between 2019 and 2021.
4. Historic Jail Population Trends
The following table summarizes average daily population (ADP) between 2012 and 2021.
Historic Average Daily Population
Month 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
January 477 508 519 508 541 480 506 490 445 315
February 475 503 535 503 554 489 490 487 435 309
March 502 522 528 522 554 499 490 506 360 304
April 513 502 498 502 550 502 506 499 330 247
May 508 508 500 508 528 503 484 493 357 222
June 499 492 474 492 533 518 514 500 374 261
July 523 463 519 511 518 515 517 495 332 252
August 509 441 535 501 498 508 504 432 338 257
September 492 436 528 465 515 512 504 435 358 224
October 524 474 498 466 493 500 500 419 338 214
November 489 505 500 492 521 475 488 404 313 204
December 499 531 474 511 475 498 489 439 301 190
Annual Avg. 500.8 490.4 509.0 498.4 523.3 499.9 499.3 466.6 356.8 249.9
The average daily population has decreased by nearly half since 2012.

Appendix B: Employee Survey Analysis

The Matrix Consulting Group conducted an employee survey as part of its operational,
staffing, and scheduling assessment of Henderson’s Corrections Division. The intent of
this survey was to allow for employee input into the study. The survey ran from October
31, 2022, to November 20, 2022. It was distributed to 132 recipients via email and
received a total of 93 responses, indicating a participation rate of 70.5%.
The results of this survey are based on the feedback received from the employee survey
and the results were not verified for their accuracy. The feedback is representative of the
key themes received from the survey results.
1. Key Findings
The following list summarizes several key findings from the customer survey:
• Long-tenured staff: As noted in section two, 51.6% of respondents had worked for
the Division for longer than ten years. Furthermore, 91.1% of respondents indicated
that they intended on making a career at the Henderson Police Department.
• Staff Quality: As highlighted in the open-response section, one of the Division’s
greatest assets is its staff. Several comments pointed to the knowledge,
professionalism, and dedication possessed by their fellow employees. Staff also
appear to be proud of the service provided by the Division. 94.3% of respondents
believe the Division provides a high level of service, while 95.6% believe that the
Division is an important part of the Police Department.
• Training: Responses to both the multiple-choice and open-response sections
shows an overall positive response to training provided to staff. Some open
responses specifically noted that training has improved in recent years, and that
they hope it continues to improve in the future.
• Staffing Resources: While the quality of staff was positively rated, a common
sentiment shared in the open-response section is that staff have to “do more with
less” due to staffing limitations. Furthermore, 95.6% of respondents indicated that
the Division has inadequate staffing resources to perform its duties.
• FMLA/Leave/Overtime Misuse: 79.6% of respondents indicated that issues of
leave and overtime abuse are not resolved in a timely manner. This issue was also
frequently noted by respondents in the open-response section.
• Police/City Leadership Support: 81.6% of respondents indicated that they do not
feel supported by both Police Department, while 85.1% do not feel supported by
City leadership.

• 66.7% noted there not being a high degree of accountability within the Division
(#17). 68.2% felt as though employees do not share a common goal (#18).
• Statements relating to upper-level support received high levels of disagreement.
81.6% noted a lack of support from Police Department leadership (#20). Statement
#20 also received 41.4% strong disagreement. Furthermore, 85.1% of respondents
felt as though City leadership did not adequately support the Division (#21). This
statement received 54% strong disagreement. Lastly, 54.6% remarked on receiving
inadequate communication from Division leadership (#22).
• 84.4% of respondents suggested that the morale of the Division is low (#11). This
statement received 50% strong disagreement.
3.2 Differences by Position Type
This section aims to highlight instances where staff from different position groups may
have deviated from the overall responses shown in section 3.1:
Average agreement and disagreement were similar across all three position groups, with
Professional Staff tending to be slightly more positive and Corrections Officer being
slightly less positive.
• 65% of Professional Staff found current work processes to be efficient (#6). This
statement received 38.2% agreement overall. Similarly, 50% of Professional Staff
indicated that the current Detention Center design promotes efficient work (#9).
Statement #9 received 29.9% agreement overall.
• While statement #13 received high disagreement overall (79.6%), 100% of
leadership staff indicated that issues related to overtime/leave abuse are not
resolved quickly.
• 74.1% of Corrections Officers indicated that there is a not a high degree of
accountability in the Division (#17). 56.3% of leadership and 55% of Professional
Staff disagreed with this statement.
• Corrections Officers and leadership staff were much less likely to indicate feeling
supported by City leadership (#21). Each of these groups provided disagreement
levels exceeding 85%, while disagreement from Professional Staff was 57.9%.
3.3 Differences by Length of Employment
This section also looks at how respondents of varying employment length responded to
the survey. Length of employment appeared to have little effect on employee perspective
towards most statements, with some exceptions for those who had worked for the

Division between five to nine years. This group had a slightly higher level of agreement
for the following:
• 52.2% felt that the Division’s work processes were efficient (#6). This received
38.2% agreement overall.
• 26.1% indicated that morale was good in the Division (#11). While still low, this is
roughly 15% higher than any other respondent group.
4. Strengths of the Division
One open-response section asked respondents to identify up to three of the Division’s

strengths. This section received a total of 145 responses from 61 participants.
(1) The quality and attitude of staff were the most commonly cited strength.
A total of 47 comments indicated their belief that the people who work in the Division are
one of its greatest strengths. Comments noted that staff are professional,
knowledgeable, dedicated, and great at multi-tasking. A common sentiment among these
comments is that staff are able to ‘do more with less’.
Similarly, 14 comments noted a high level of teamwork and cooperation between staff.
(2) The training provided to Division staff has improvement as of late.
17 comments lauded the training available to Division staff, with many noting that its
quality has improved substantially in recent years. Some comments noted that they hope
the willingness to expand training continues into the future.
(3) Some comments endorsed Division supervisors and leadership.
A total of 16 comments positively referenced Division staff at the supervisory position or

above. Some comments noted that some recent changes to the leadership group (again,
at the supervisor level and above) seems to be promoting a more forward-thinking and
transparent attitude for the Division as a whole.
(4) The Division provides high-quality services.
15 comments referred to the services provided by the Division. Inmate needs are met
quickly and with a high level of professionalism. Some comments noted that they are
proud of the impact their job has on ensuring the safety of the community as a whole.

5. Opportunities for Improvement
One open-response section asked respondents to identify up to three operational and

process improvements for the Division. This section received a total of 199 responses
from 70 participants.
(1) Employees would like to see additional staff resources assigned to the Division.
A total of 69 comments referred to the need for additional staff in the Division. While
many of these comments broadly called for more staff (e.g., “Increase staffing.”), some
were more specific in their requests. The following list summarizes some of the more
frequently specified staffing needs:
• An increase in the number of staff

• The creation of a transportation team.
• An increase in the number of booking staff. Multiple comments also requested
more nursing staff to assist with booking.
• Hiring more civilian staff to assist with administrative tasks, such as the
processing of paperwork.
• Creating the post of kitchen officer.
(2) Multiple responses cited a need for the redefining and reallocation of certain
roles and responsibilities.
Several comments suggested opportunities for certain positions to be reclassified, while

others noted that certain duties should be performed by a different type of position:
• One of the most commonly requested changes related to Classifications: 12

respondents indicated that they believe the Classification unit should be staffed
entirely by sworn positions instead of civilian staff. Other organizational changes
noted in the survey are as follows:
• As noted in subsection one, multiple respondents would like to see a Kitchen
Officer position.
• Multiple respondents noted the need for a reduction in spans of control at the
highest level of the Division.
• Two comments noted that the DCT position should be reclassified as a sworn
position to increase coverage.

(3) Staff would like an increase in employee accountability, specifically as it relates

to the use of FMLA. Staff would also like to see better communication.
15 comments highlighted a need for more accountability for some staff, specifically as it
relates to the equitable sharing of workload. A further nine comments specifically pointed
to potential instances of sick leave/FMLA/Light Duty/Modified Duty misuse that may be
going uncorrected.
Similarly, seven comments noted that communication could be improved at all levels of
the Division.
(4) Some staff would like to see new/better equipment, technology, and processes.
Multiple comments stated a need for new/better equipment, better use of technology,
new work processes, and training:
• Seven comments referenced training in some way. Respondents would like to see
more training incentives available to staff, as well as more training opportunities
in general.
• Six comments mentioned the need for some technological improvements within
the Division. These comments largely consisted of staff signaling their desire for
a less paper-based system to be used during the inmate booking process.
• Six comments asked for more opportunities for promotion. Some of these
comments suggested creating new positions in order to allow for more upward or
lateral movement within the Division.
• Five comments specifically referenced a need to change where certain members
of staff are located within the facility. Suggestions included moving civilian staff
to a safer area in booking, moving sergeants to the booking floor, and removing
court from Pod Two.
(5) Several responses specifically mentioned some improvements to inmate

services or how they are provided.
A total of ten comments mentioned the services provided directly to inmates:
• Three comments noted a need for food flaps on all cell doors to allow for the safe
provision of food to inmates.
• Three comments specifically requested better mental health services for inmates.
• Other comments suggested offering more/better programs to inmates, including
work study and testing.

Matrix Report On Henderson Jail

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matrix Report On Henderson Jail

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrections Division Assessment

June 21, 2023

In summary, this study is designed to be a comprehensive assessment of the Henderson

(2) Methodology Used to Conduct the Study

(3) Key Findings

Matrix Consulting Group 2

2. Security Staﬃng and Operational Analysis

1. Overview of the Existing Detention Center Work Environment

• Sergeants and Lieutenants are in “acting” positions to backﬁll vacancies on a

2. Overview of the Current Security Fixed Post Staﬃng Plan

Security posts are staffed by Correction Oﬃcers.

Matrix Consulting Group 9

3. Operational and Staﬃng Approaches That Impact the Detention Center.

(1) Escorting of Inmate Service Providers

Matrix Consulting Group 10

If the escort/accompany policy was changed to include only those individuals’

(2) Transportation and Duties Outside the Facility

Matrix Consulting Group 11

transition to the facility and

Transition to the facility and housing rover posts.

(3) Staff Breaks

This is especially noted in Pod 2, where higher custody and

Matrix Consulting Group 12

(4) Intake and Release Staﬃng Approaches

Based on the current staﬃng plan, there are a total of

Operational modiﬁcations that should be implemented include:

• Utilize other employee classiﬁcations than Correction Oﬃcer to conduct non

Matrix Consulting Group 13

• Create an interlock vestibule or hallways for inmate releases so that Correction

There are several operational approaches to improve operational eﬃciencies in addition

. Needed changes are

(5) Court Duties

(6) Lobby Security

• Changing to a non-certiﬁed position would be inconsistent with public screening

Matrix Consulting Group 14

The Lobby Security post should remain a Correction Oﬃcer post.

(7) Promotional Testing Process

Matrix Consulting Group 15

(1) Mental Health / Medical Unit (MHU)

(2) Facility Rover

As discussed previously there is a limited pool of available Correction Oﬃcers to assist

Matrix Consulting Group 16

(3) Segregation Housing (Pod 2)

Matrix Consulting Group 17

5. Net Annual Work Hours Calculation

(1) Historic Leave

Historic Leave Data (CO)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Matrix Consulting Group 19

Historic Leave Data (Sgt)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

(2) Light Duty Hours

Total Light Duty Hours

Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Matrix Consulting Group 20

(3) Oﬃcer Break Hours

Total Break Hours by Shift

Shift Length (Hours) 8 10 12

(4) Net Annual Work Hours Calculation

Before a staﬃng model can be developed, it is important to determine staff’s net

The following factors are considered in these net availability calculations:

Matrix Consulting Group 21

Calculated from 2017 – 22 data: 50 hours of light duty per year.