Connecticut Sheriffs System Recommendations

Connecticut Sheriffs System
Options and Staff Recommendations

Options

The primary responsibilities of sheriffs in Connecticut are transporting prisoners, providing security at courthouses, and serving legal papers. The sheriffs system is organized geographically according to the lines of the state's eight counties.

The answer to the question of which structure is the best one for delivering the services currently provided by sheriffs encompasses a variety of factors. Depending on the importance one attributes to specific elements, different alternatives will seem more appropriate.

This document describes approaches that could be used in the future to carry out the functions of the sheriffs. Included as an option is continuation of the current system with modifications. The goal of all of the proposals is greater professionalism and clearer organizational control. In the end, the options represent philosophical differences, not right or wrong choices.

Recent proposals

Several different plans for restructuring the sheriffs system were proposed by the governor and by legislators during 1999. The plans varied in scope and content, but each called for amending the state constitution to eliminate the office of high sheriff. [1]

Under two of the plans, courthouse security and service of process would be placed under the Judicial Branch. Prisoner transportation would become the responsibility of the Department of Correction (DOC).

Another proposal would transfer existing special deputy sheriffs to the Judicial Department and make them state employees. The chief court administrator would fill vacancies as they occurred. New hires would be subject to criminal background checks, and no convicted felon could be hired.

Existing deputy sheriffs would be sworn in as "Judicial Enforcement Officers." They would function as private contractors with exclusive authority to provide fee-for-service legal execution and service of process. They would be subject to background checks, could not have been convicted of a felony, and would have to re-register every two years.

Under this plan, during the transition until the constitution was changed, two of the current high sheriffs -- one from each party -- would be designated nonpartisan, unclassified assistants to the chief court administrator. They would be responsible for general management of all of the functions being transferred to the Judicial Department.

Scenarios

The functions performed by sheriffs in Connecticut can be grouped into five categories -- general security of court buildings, custody of prisoners in courthouse lock-ups (cell blocks), transportation of prisoners to and from courthouses, service of process, and a mix of tasks that primarily involve assisting others with their responsibilities. In examining options for these services in the future, it is useful to consider the alternatives from several levels.

The first question is whether one entity should continue to provide all of the services, or whether it would be better to split up the functions among different agencies? If the latter, which functions need to stay together? Additionally, which agencies would best be able to carry out the required functions?

As shown in Figure V-1, the current sheriffs system involves functions performed by special deputy sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and sheriffs in general. Special deputies perform three of the functions -- court security, court lock-ups, and prisoner transportation. The elected, high sheriffs and deputy sheriffs perform service of process; both generally also are authorized to perform the various assistance tasks.

The court security function relates to court facilities. It includes the operation of metal detectors and the maintenance of safety within courtrooms and parking areas. The first consideration is whether responsibility for it should be removed from the statutory control of the sheriffs. If so, then where? The most realistic agencies would be the Judicial Department, the Department of Correction, or the Department of Public Safety.

Assignment of the function to a single authority, rather than being overseen by eight different administrators, would permit a more even distribution of work and establishment of consistent operational policies statewide. Program review committee staff recommends the Judicial Department be designated the entity responsible for the general courthouse security function.

The Judicial Department already oversees all other aspects of courthouse operations, including, most importantly, setting the level of activity within each facility. Giving the department responsibility for court security will mean it has both the goal and the authority to ensure the safety of those working at and visiting the courts. This choice would also alleviate current conflicts with departmental efforts to ensure all who have contact with the courts are provided with a customer-oriented place to transact business

The next question concerns whether the lock-up function (i.e., oversight of the cell block area and the prisoners held there) should be grouped with the general court security function or prisoner transportation. The decision is probably best answered by looking at the current system. Special deputies who work as transit staff are most likely to work in the cell block area when they are not on the road. These workers are familiar with the prisoners they bring to the courthouse, and there is a custodial role in both functions. Program review committee staff recommends the cell-block function be grouped with the prisoner transportation function, regardless of the agency selected to perform prisoner transportation.

The next question is whether to keep all of the court-related functions currently performed by sheriffs together or whether to assign prisoner transportation elsewhere. Based on the earlier staff recommendation, keeping the functions together would mean placing prisoner transportation within the Judicial Department. The primary rationale for maintaining all operations in one agency is to facilitate establishment of uniform qualifications and operating procedures. It also would provide flexibility for moving personnel across functional areas and physical locations when workloads fluctuate among courthouses.

The principal advantage of separating the security and transportation functions is to optimize the use of personnel with specialized training and skills within the functions they are most familiar with. If the Department of Correction were selected to handle transportation, the potential also exists for cost savings from a more efficient deployment of personnel as they merge this added duty to their existing transportation function. In addition, conditions for prisoners could be improved. (Currently, some prisoners must rise as early as 3:00 a.m. in order to reach court for a mid-morning appearance, and they may not return to their over-night destination until late evening, only to repeat the schedule the next day if an additional court appearance is required.)

There are good arguments for both consolidation and for separation. In the end, the selection of one agency over another is a philosophical decision, guided by the weight each person gives to the elements for and against the options. Program review committee staff recommends the Department of Correction take over responsibility for the transportation of prisoners to court (and their custody within the court lock-ups).

The next area to examine is service of process. Key considerations are whether to subdivide categories of the work and who should be authorized to perform it. The latter could be deputy sheriffs, employees of the state, individuals who are appointed by or register with a state agency, or a combination of these categories. Important factors to consider are the professionalism of the servers, the convenience afforded users, and the costs of each option.

The nature of the activities involved in process serving -- locating people and places within set times -- require flexibility. If employees of the state were used to serve process, the state would receive the fees collected by them and would save approximately $1 million a year state agencies spend for service of process work. However, the administering agency would have to ensure these employees have access to timely clerical services and automobiles as well as a flexible work schedule that includes evening and weekend hours.

If deputy sheriffs or registered individuals handle service of process, at most the state would need only a small regulatory unit to assess qualifications, verify compliance with training requirements, and maintain a roster of authorized process servers. The marketplace will economically reward those who perform well and avoid those who perform poorly.

Program review committee staff recommends Connecticut offer a registration option that, at a minimum, would allow qualified individuals to serve original summonses and complaints as well as post-judgment documents on a statewide basis. These tasks are handled by a number of different parties nationally and in some instances even within Connecticut. Technological advances in electronic communications in the 21st century will increase the demand for flexibility, and competitive service will become increasingly important.

Program review committee staff recommends state oversight of process servers be given to the Judicial Department. This responsibility complements the department’s other duties with respect to the creation and disposition of the legal work that service of process relates to. It also is in line with the role county courts in many other states play, where judges appoint individuals to serve process.

In terms of the "other" enforcement and assistance sheriffs are statutorily authorized to provide, some duties could remain the responsibility of the high sheriffs as long as they are constitutional officers. However, in most cases, the functions are rarely if ever performed by sheriffs. Indeed, many of the statutes allow other methods of carrying out the function or the other party involved in the activity could be given sole responsibility for the task (e.g., distributing notices from the secretary of the state to legislators regarding a special session, removing cancelled registration plates from motor vehicles in parking areas, or assisting animal and agriculture authorities with eradication of bovine tuberculosis). Program review committee staff recommends statutes authorizing sheriffs to assist other parties with specific duties be revised to eliminate the references to sheriffs.

Comparison of Alternatives

Tables V-1A through V-1D summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the most feasible approaches for obtaining the services currently provided by sheriffs. Also included for each alternative is the estimated cost. In some cases, other considerations that might affect implementation of the option are also described.

Attachment A contains the detailed calculations program review committee staff used to determine the full-time equivalent staffing and cost estimates. All of the tables are based on the following assumptions:

· there are 52 court locations and 253 courtrooms to secure;

· there are 248 court days per year;

· the number of personnel needed for general court security will be the same regardless of the agency responsible for the function, but due to current differences in the benefits packages related to paid time off, the FTE for the sheriffs is lower;

· the number of FTE personnel needed for prisoner transportation will vary depending on the agency responsible for the function; and

· 24-hour lock-up facilities are operated in Hartford and New Haven.

The administrative staff required for each function will be affected by whether the function is to be operated separately from the other functions. Although some efficiencies in accounting and payroll staff may be feasible, new positions may be needed to coordinate activities transferred to a new agency. Savings from existing General Fund positions are likely to be small as the personnel currently in the jobs may obtain positions with other state agencies, or if laid off, would be eligible for unemployment.

An important factor to consider in making changes to the sheriffs system is the collective bargaining contract due to be negotiated with the special deputy sheriffs in 2000. Regardless of who operates the system, the salary and benefits package for special deputies are likely to increase. However, depending on the effective date and the nature of the changes to the system, the party responsible for negotiations might have to be changed or the timing of modifications to the system might have to be delayed.

For example, if special deputies were transferred to the Judicial Branch before the contract is settled, responsibility for negotiations would also transfer because the Office of Labor Relations only handles that function for the executive branch. If the time frame for changes occurs after an agreement is reached through negotiations or arbitration, then provisions of the contract might restrict some actions of the agency receiving the workers. Program review committee staff recommends if changes are to be made in the administration of the courthouse security and prisoner transportation functions, the changes should become effective as early in fiscal year 2001 as possible.

TABLE V-1A. COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUNCTION.
Agency	Sheriffs	Judicial Branch	Dept. of Correction	Dept. of Public Safety
FTE Staff	480	508	508	508
Estimated Cost per diems + benefits	$13.8M + $4.2M ($15.3M + $6.3M with full benefits)	$18.9M + $7.8M	$18.8M + $7.5M	$18.9M + $7.5M
Advantages	Least costly alternative in short-term (primarily due to reduced benefits) Retains unified work force within single entity Fewer layers of bureaucracy	Puts responsibility for security in agency that controls courthouses and level of daily activity within Reduces philosophical conflicts between judicial and another agency about how to deal with the public If combined with transport, retains unified work force, provides flexibility to move staff across tasks, and puts authority for all court-related functions in single agency	If combined with prisoner transport, retains unified work force within single agency, provides flexibility to move staff across tasks, and would facilitate issues related to prisoner custody	Is in keeping with agency's mission of public safety If combined with prisoner transport, retains a unified work force within single agency and provides flexibility to move staff across tasks Same union represents special deputy sheriffs and majority of this agency's work force
Disadvantages	Eight independently elected individuals operate single system -- unclear lines of authority Among regions, policies not always consistent and workloads unequal Continues possibility of conflicts between operational philosophies of judicial and sheriffs County lines do not match judicial regions	More costly based on estimated salary range If not also given prisoner transport, continues mixed lines of authority over courthouses Different union represents special deputies and majority of this agency's work force	Gives agency broader responsibilities than it currently has -- requires it to deal with wider range of people than just those incarcerated Continues possibility of conflicts between operational philosophies of judicial and agency handling security Different union represents special deputies and majority of this agency's work force	Adds new agency to system Agency’s primary mission of police services may confuse public about court-related role More costly based on estimated salary range Continues possibility of conflicts between operational philosophies of judicial and agency handling security If not also given transport, continues mixed lines of authority over courthouses

TABLE V-1B. PRISONER TRANSPORTATION FUNCTION.
Agency	Sheriffs	Judicial Branch	Department of Correction	Department of Public Safety
FTE Staff	110	116	81	116
Estimated Cost per diems+ benefits	$3.6M + $1.1M ($4M + $1.6M with full benefits)	$4.3M + $1.8M	$3M + $1.2M	$4.3M + $1.7M
Advantages	Retains unified work force in single agency Fewer layers of bureaucracy	If combined with courthouse security, would put all authority for courthouses in single agency, eliminate possibility of conflicts regarding operational philosophies of Judicial Branch and another agency, and improve control of prisoner movement within courthouses	Least costly alternative (due to projected staffing efficiencies) Provides for more continuous custody of prisoners Potential for reduced number of total staff and vehicles If combined with courthouse security, retains unified work force in single agency	If combined with courthouse security, retains unified work force in single agency
Disadvantages	Continues the potential for jurisdictional issues with DOC over custody of prisoners Also see Courthouse Security	Continues the potential for jurisdictional issues with DOC over custody of prisoners	If not also given courthouse security, continues mixed lines of authority over courthouses Different union represents special deputies and majority of this agency's work force	Adds new agency to system Continues the potential for jurisdictional issues with DOC over custody of prisoners If not also given courthouse security, perpetuates mixed lines of authority over courthouses
Other Considerations		Local police departments may have to resume transporting their own prisoners to court, thus increasing their costs
Other Considerations	Increased use of video technology in the future will reduce the need to transport as many incarcerated individuals to courthouses

TABLE V-1c. Cell Block (lock-UP) FUNCTION (assumes combined with prisoner transportation function).
Agency	Sheriffs	Judicial Branch	Department of Correction	Department of Public Safety
FTE Staff	210 + 18 (24-hr lock-up)	222 + 19 (24-hr)	156 + 18 (24-hr)	222 + 19 (24-hr)
Estimated Cost per diems + benefits	$6.9M + $2.1M ($7.6M + $3.2M with full benefits)	$9M + $3.7M	$6.3M + $2.5M	$9M + $3.6M
Advantages	See prisoner transportation	See prisoner transportation	Provides more continuous custody of prisoners Facilitates availability of prisoners for court appearances, reduces their physical discomfort, and increases their accessibility to legal counsel Provides agency with additional beds, if capacity reached in main facilities	See prisoner transportation
Disadvantages	See prisoner transportation	See prisoner transportation	Would likely increase the number of communities where prisoners are held over night in court facilities	See prisoner transportation

TABLE V-1d. seRvice Of process FUNCTION.
Agency	Sheriffs	State Employees	Appointed by Judicial Branch	Register with State (e.g., Judicial)
FTE Staff	245 self-employed; supervised part-time by salaried high sheriffs	117 to perform service + 11 clerical + 1 secretary + 1 administrator	1 administrator + 1 secretary	1 administrator + 1 secretary
Estimated Cost (per diems + benefits)	Contained in system costs (if ¼ of high sheriffs time = ~$100,000)	$6.5M but offset by potential revenue (~$10M in CY 98)	~$175,000	~$175,000
Advantages	Few complaints generated by current system Low staff cost to the State Provides incentive to process server – only paid if work completed No bureaucracy	All revenue collected would accrue to the State and current fee payments would end Allows consistent practices statewide Allows workers to serve documents statewide	Provides incentive to process server – only paid if work completed Allows workers to serve documents statewide	Provides free market competition Provides incentive to process server – only paid if work completed Allows workers to serve documents statewide
Disadvantages	Limited to those holding appointments Restricts who can work in specific region Policies (e.g., experience requirements and training) not consistent among regions Workloads not equal among regions Costs state ~$1M/ year for service fees	Adds jobs to state payroll Duties require flexible work schedule -- could result in extensive evening and weekend work (with overtime costs) Salaried position may be disincentive to complete difficult services	Limited to those holding appointments Would still cost state ~$1M/year for service fees	Additional cost to the state without offsetting revenue Would still cost state ~$1M/year for service fees
Other Considerations			Common appointive body in other states	Method used in 5 other states and NYC
Other Considerations	Increased acceptance of electronic signatures and electronic filings should reduce workload in the future

Modifications to Sheriffs System

Currently, a large number of entities are involved in the operation of the sheriffs system. As shown in Figure V-2, an advisory board, constitutional officials, and informal organizations all have roles in the system. Multiple entities exert authority over several of the participants in the process, in particular the staff in the Office of the County Sheriffs and the appointed sheriffs (i.e., special deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriffs). This type of structure produces unclear lines of authority and can result in conflicting or nonexistent policies.

As shown in Table V-2, under the current system, responsibility for specific tasks is often shared. In practice, the informal Council of the High Sheriffs makes more decisions than the statutorily created Sheriffs' Advisory Board, even in areas that would seem to be within the jurisdiction of the board. For example, the council is discussing whether a change should be made in the policy regarding the appointment of individuals with felony convictions. No discussions have been held with the board nor are any planned. Similarly, discussions about changing the recruitment process for special deputy sheriffs have only occurred at council meetings. Yet, the board is the entity statutorily responsible for establishing qualifications for courthouse security personnel.

Although the council is composed of the eight elected high sheriffs, its role in the system is troubling. It has no statutorily designated authority as a group, nor do the individual high sheriffs have the power singularly or collectively to impose policies on one another. In addition, none of the other entities concerned with the operation of the state's court system have representation on or input into the work of the council. Furthermore, its work adds considerably to the workload of the staff in the Office of the County Sheriffs.

Table V-2. Major Functions Of Sheriffs System.
Function	Who Has Responsibility
Serve legal process	High Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs
Transport prisoners	High Sheriffs through special deputy sheriffs
Custody of prisoners at courthouses	High Sheriffs through special deputy sheriffs
Attendance at court	High Sheriffs through special deputy sheriffs
Receive and allocate appropriations	Sheriffs' Advisory Board through Office of the County Sheriffs
Establish qualifications for deputy sheriffs	High Sheriffs (and statutory provisions)
Establish minimum qualifications and develop standardized test for courthouse security personnel	Sheriffs' Advisory Board (by statute); Council of the High Sheriffs (in practice)
Establish and administer training program for deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs	Sheriffs' Advisory Board through Office of the County Sheriffs and High Sheriffs
Establish operating procedures and direct prisoner transportation and courthouse security system	Sheriffs' Advisory Board (by statute); Council of the High Sheriffs (in practice)
Perform administrative functions (e.g., payroll)	Office of the County Sheriffs

If the sheriffs continue to perform the duties they are currently responsible for, program review committee staff believes it is essential changes be made in the current organizational structure. Specifically, program review committee staff recommends:

· the role of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board should be revised to reflect its name (i.e., provide advice), or it should be eliminated;

· authority over all aspects of the special deputy sheriffs and the Office of the County Sheriffs should be given to a statutorily established executive branch entity called the Sheriffs Department;

· the newly created Sheriffs Department should have a permanent central administrative staff and a specific number of special deputy sheriffs per region; and

· the Sheriffs Department should be run by a statutory Council of Sheriffs, composed of the eight high sheriffs, and actions of the council would require an affirmative vote by a majority of the total membership, not just those present. (Designees would not be authorized to vote.)

Qualifications

Regarding the selection of individuals for appointment as deputy or special deputy sheriffs, as discussed in Section III of the Background Briefing document, changes have been made to the system in the past few years. Qualifications and physical fitness standards for special deputies are now consistent statewide. However, the requirements are general in nature, and the training for new appointees is less rigorous than that given for other related state jobs. As shown in Table V-3, the amount of classroom training is far below that of law enforcement officers, and it is one-third less than that received by correctional officers.

TABLE V-3. Comparison Of Training Hours.
Program	Position	Classroom Hours	On-the-Job
Sheriffs Recruit Academy	Special deputy sheriffs	137.5	15+ days
Department of Correction	Correctional officers	210	15 days
Connecticut Police Academy	State protective services employees and local police officers	646	80 hours
State Police Training Academy	State police troopers	1,312	6-10 weeks
Sources of data: Descriptive materials from each program.

Requirements for deputy sheriffs continue to vary, depending on the particular high sheriff making the appointment. Although all recent appointees attended a two-week centralized training program, on-the-job training differs considerably. Most new appointees are assigned to ride with another experienced deputy sheriff; however, the length of this requirement ranges from one week to 30 days or more. Similarly, subsequent work under the supervision of another deputy can last from eight days to six months.

Whether the sheriffs or another agency is responsible for these workers, program review committee staff believes more detailed qualifications and training should be required of those performing courthouse security and prisoner transportation functions.

The program review committee staff recommends minimum standards for court security and prisoner transportation workers should be:

· 21 years of age;

· U.S. citizen or lawful resident of the country;

· high school graduate (or its equivalent);

· possess and retain a Connecticut motor vehicle operator’s license;

· have no felony convictions; and

· be a resident of the state by the time training is completed.

Applicants who achieve a score of at least 70 on a written exam that parallels the scope of the test given by DAS for correctional officers will be placed on a ranked list. New hires must be selected from the list based on the rankings from the exam. Prior to being admitted for training, those on the list must pass a medical exam that includes a drug screening and a physical fitness test. They also must undergo a thorough background check, including a criminal history and fingerprint check, an employment history, and a character reference check.

The training program for courthouse security and prisoner transport workers shall include at least 200 hours of classroom work and 120 hours of on-the job training. Individuals chosen to attend training will be given a conditional appointment, dependent upon successful completion of both components of training.

The cost of the increased training requirement will vary depending on the entity providing the training. For example, if the sheriffs are still operating the system, the training cost is estimated to increase about $1,400 per new employee. [2]

Regardless of the entity overseeing the service of process function, program review committee staff believes the standards for process servers also should be uniform statewide. The program review committee staff recommends the minimum criteria for those who serve process shall be:

· 21 years of age;

· U.S. citizen or lawful resident of the country;

· high school graduate (or its equivalent);

· possess and retain a Connecticut motor vehicle operator’s license;

· have no felony convictions; and

· resident of Connecticut.

In addition, the person must post a $10,000 bond and maintain $300,000 in liability insurance.

Attachment A

Program review committee staff determination of estimated full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing and costs for courthouse-related personnel was based on an analysis of other staffing reports, including:

Security Cell Block Transport Total

OPM Staffing Report Standard (Feb. 1998) 859 163 91 1,113

OPM Staffing Report 70% Goal) 601 114 64 779

Actual at time of OPM Staffing Report 428 164 85 677

OFA Estimate (Spring 1999) 474 223+supvsr 98+supvsr 818

Actual FY 98 674

Actual November 19, 1999 464 211 116 790

Security Cell Block Transport Total

LPR&IC Projected Sheriffs Staffing Level (assumes 248 work days for courts)	480	210	110	800
24-hour lockups in Hartford and New Haven require additional 117 days of coverage, which adds 117/248 [or 0.47] x 37.5 FTE		18		18
		228		818

LPR&IC Projected Nonsheriffs staff = Number of Sheriffs x 1.058	508	222	116	846
24-hour lock-up add-on for additional days x 1.058		19		19
		241		865
Nonsheriiffs levels include differential for vacation and sick days (based on 10 days vacation and 5 days sick per employee per year, which is 3 weeks/52 weeks or 0.058; no differential for holidays because courts are not open and pay is built into salaries

LPR&IC Projected Nonsheriffs staff if DOC takes over transport and lock-up based on May 18, 1999 agency memo suggesting possibility of 30% staff reduction		155	81
24-hour lock-up add-on for additional days using same FTE as sheriffs (to ensure minimum coverage)		18
		173

Supervisory staff apportioned on the basis of information in Nov. 19, 1999 staffing report

The salary data below was used to estimate salaries for the costs of the options.

	Daily Salary	Annual Salary (248 days)	Annual Salary (with holidays = 260 days)	Annual Minimum Salary (with full benefits)	Annual Maximum Salary (with full benefits)	Mid-range Annual Salary	Fringe Rate
Sheriffs							30.15%
Supervisor	$140	$34,720	$36,400
Transport	$130	$32,240	$33,800
Cell Block	$120	$29,760	$31,200
Security ($110; $115)	$112.50	$27,900	$29,250
Shift Differential	$5.00	$1,240	$1,300

Judicial							41.28%
Blgds & Grounds				$30,847	$40,348	$35,598
Police Officer				$38,935	$50,329	$44,632
Police Supervisor				$45,058	$57,582	$51,320
New Position				$32,500	$42,000	$37,250
New Supervisor				$39,500	$49,000	$44,250

Dept. of Correction							39.81%
Correctional Officer				$30,587	$39,812	$35,200
Correctional Lieutenant				$43,041	$55,210	$49,126


Dept. of Public Safety							39.81%
Trooper Trainee				$29,594
Trooper				$37,108	$50,344	$43,726
New Position				$32,500	$42,000	$37,250
New Supervisor				$39,500	$49,000	$44,250

Protective Services							41.28%
Trainee				$27,522	$35,515	$31,519
Agency Police Officer				$34,910	$44,318	$39,614

The next page uses this information and the estimated FTE staffing levels by function and by agency to calculate the estimated cost of workers for each of the agencies listed as options in Tables V-1A through V-1C.

ENTITY	Function	Annual Salary	FTEs	Annual Cost	Fringe Rate	Fringe Cost	Total Cost
Sheriffs Current
	Security	$27,900	420	$11,718,000	30.15%	$3,532,977	$15,250,977
	Security - S	$34,720	60	$2,083,200	30.15%	$628,085	$2,711,285
	Transport	$32,240	100	$3,224,000	30.15%	$972,036	$4,196,036
	Transport - S	$34,720	10	$347,200	30.15%	$104,681	$451,881
	Cell Block	$29,760	195	$5,803,200	30.15%	$1,749,665	$7,552,865
	Cell Block - S	$34,720	15	$520,800	30.15%	$157,021	$677,821
	24-Hour add-on	$31,000	15	$465,000	30.15%	$140,198	$605,198
	24-Hour add-on - S	$35,960	3	$107,880	30.15%	$32,526	$140,406
	Total		818	$24,269,280		$7,317,188	$31,586,468

Sheriffs with benefits, but no salary increase
	Security	$29,250	445	$13,016,250	41.28%	$5,373,108	$18,389,358
	Security - S	$36,400	63	$2,293,200	41.28%	$946,633	$3,239,833
	Transport	$33,800	105	$3,549,000	41.28%	$1,465,027	$5,014,027
	Transport - S	$36,400	11	$400,400	41.28%	$165,285	$565,685
	Cell Block	$31,200	206	$6,427,200	41.28%	$2,653,148	$9,080,348
	Cell Block - S	$36,400	16	$582,400	41.28%	$240,415	$822,815
	24-Hour add-on	$32,500	16	$520,000	41.28%	$214,656	$734,656
	24-Hour add-on - S	$37,700	3	$113,100	41.28%	$46,688	$159,788
	Total		865	$26,901,550		$11,104,960	$38,006,510

Judicial Branch
	Security	$37,250	445	$16,576,250	41.28%	$6,842,676	$23,418,926
	Security - S	$37,250	63	$2,346,750	41.28%	$968,738	$3,315,488
	Transport	$37,250	105	$3,911,250	41.28%	$1,614,564	$5,525,814
	Transport - S	$37,250	11	$409,750	41.28%	$169,145	$578,895
	Cell Block	$37,250	206	$7,673,500	41.28%	$3,167,621	$10,841,121
	Cell Block - S	$37,250	16	$596,000	41.28%	$246,029	$842,029
	24-Hour add-on	$37,250	16	$596,000	41.28%	$246,029	$842,029
	24-Hour add-on - S	$37,250	3	$111,750	41.28%	$46,130	$157,880
	Total		865	$32,221,250		$13,300,932	$45,522,182

Dept. of Public Safety
	Security	$37,250	445	$16,576,250	39.81%	$6,599,005	$23,175,255
	Security - S	$37,250	63	$2,346,750	39.81%	$934,241	$3,280,991
	Transport	$37,250	105	$3,911,250	39.81%	$1,557,069	$5,468,319
	Transport - S	$37,250	11	$409,750	39.81%	$163,121	$572,871
	Cell Block	$37,250	206	$7,673,500	39.81%	$3,054,820	$10,728,320
	Cell Block - S	$37,250	16	$596,000	39.81%	$237,268	$833,268
	24-Hour add-on	$37,250	16	$596,000	39.81%	$237,268	$833,268
	24-Hour add-on - S	$37,250	3	$111,750	39.81%	$44,488	$156,238
	Total		865	$32,221,250		$12,827,280	$45,048,530

Dept. of Correction