Performance Audit of the
Department of Corrections
for the
Legislative Service Bureau of the
Oklahoma Legislature
FINAL REPORT

December 31, 2007

502 East 11th Street, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78701
512 /476-4697
www.mgtofamerica.com

MGT Office Austin
502 East 11th Street
Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 476-4697
(512) 476-4699 FAX
www.mgtcriminaljustice.com

December 31, 2007

The Honorable Lance Cargill
Speaker of the House
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard
Room 401
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

The Honorable Mike Morgan
President Pro Tempore
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard
Room 422
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

The Honorable Glenn Coffee
Co-President Pro Tempore
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard
Room 418
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Dear Sirs:
In July 2007, the leadership of the Oklahoma State Legislature, through the Legislative Services
Bureau, requested that MGT of America conduct a comprehensive performance review of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Per the provisions of the agreement between MGT and the
Legislative Services Bureau, the attached final report containing the observations, findings and
recommendations of our project team is submitted for your review and consideration.
The recommendations contained in this report were derived at after weeks of interviews, analysis of
data, review of documents, and personal observations of the operations of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections and related criminal justice functions. We received enthusiastic input
into this assessment by a wide range of individuals representing virtually all aspects of the criminal
justice system of Oklahoma. These individuals included:


Members and staff of the Oklahoma State Legislature;



Director Justin Jones and staff at all levels of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections;



Commissioner Terri White of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services and staff of her department;



Representatives of the county criminal justice systems including sheriffs,
district attorneys, public defenders, judges, and county commissioners;



Representatives of a variety of constituent groups and organizations including
victim rights organization, district attorneys association, sheriffs association,
employee organizations, etc.; and



Citizens at large who submitted suggestions, recommendations, observations,
and comments on the criminal justice system and particularly the Department
of Corrections.

In total, we interviewed over 500 individuals during the course of this review and analyzed
hundreds of documents and reports provided to us by the Department of Corrections, the Criminal
Justice Resource Center, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and
members and staff of the legislature.

The Honorable Lance Cargill
December 31, 2007
Page 2

The Honorable Mike Morgan

The Honorable Glenn Coffee

Although it is impossible to fully comprehend and dissect every issue and problem of an
organization as complex as this in the time allotted to us, we believe we have developed an
understanding of the core issues facing the corrections system of Oklahoma. Nonetheless, we
present the options that are available to improve its efficiency and cost effectiveness. We believe
the information obtained from our interviews, our review of the documents made available to us,
combined with our own personal observations, analysis and assessment, have enabled us to develop
some specific recommendations, that if implemented, will improve the effectiveness of the
corrections system of Oklahoma and enhance its ability to meet its primary challenge, to assist in
providing for the safety and security of the citizens of Oklahoma.
The 141 recommendations outlined in this report have been developed with input from the
members of the legislature who actively participated in this assessment by providing us direction,
information, opinions, feedback and a historical perspective of the issues presented to us. The
commitment of the members who participated on this project was extraordinary in terms of their
willingness to allot a significant amount of time reviewing our analysis and participating in lengthy
briefings of our preliminary findings and recommendations. Without their active participation this
assessment could not have been completed in the manner in which you envisioned.
We also have to acknowledge the active and enthusiastic participation in this review by Director
Justin Jones and the staff of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. We were impressed by the
professionalism, enthusiasm, and commitment to excellence by staff at all levels of the department.
The willingness of the director and members of his staff to actively participate and support this
review enabled the project team to obtain information on the complex issues they face in a manner
that facilitated our review and the conclusions included in this report.
We believe that the attached report provides you and the members of the Oklahoma State
Legislature the independent and professional assessment of the Department of Corrections that you
envisioned this project. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you as the legislature continues to
develop long-term solutions to very complex and important issues.
Sincerely,

Kenneth McGinnis
Partner

LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU OF THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1-1

2.

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2-1

3.

Population & Capacity............................................................................................... 3-1
a.
b.
c.

4.

Capacity Management ............................................................................................... 4-1
a.
b.

5.

Oklahoma Drug Courts ................................................................................... 5-1
Community Sentencing ................................................................................. 5-26
Oklahoma Parole Board ................................................................................ 5-30
Division of Community Corrections ............................................................. 5-37

Institutional Operations & Support Services........................................................... 6-1
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.

7.

Classification ................................................................................................... 4-1
DOC Use of County Jail Beds......................................................................... 4-7

Community Programs................................................................................................ 5-1
a.
b.
c.
d.

6.

Background ..................................................................................................... 3-1
Capacity Needs Based on Population Projections......................................... 3-13
Use of Private Correctional Facilities............................................................ 3-19

Staffing ............................................................................................................ 6-1
Staff Retention................................................................................................. 6-9
Physical Plant and Infrastructure................................................................... 6-11
Security Equipment ....................................................................................... 6-17
Private Prisons Operations ............................................................................ 6-18
Program Services........................................................................................... 6-26
Classification ................................................................................................. 6-27
Violence Levels............................................................................................. 6-30
Inmate Transfer Backlogs.............................................................................. 6-33
Use of Existing Facility Space ...................................................................... 6-35
Health Care Programs ................................................................................... 6-39
Oklahoma Correctional Industries................................................................. 6-50
Management of Female Offenders ................................................................ 6-54

Administration............................................................................................................ 7-1
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Budget ............................................................................................................. 7-1
Information Technology................................................................................ 7-29
Internal Audit Division.................................................................................. 7-35
Internal Affairs Unit ...................................................................................... 7-43
Organization Structure and Governance ....................................................... 7-48

Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:

Recommendations
Medical Claims/Audit Findings
Analysis of CCA Costs
Interview List

Page TOC-1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The MGT project team wishes to extend our appreciation and thanks to those within the
Oklahoma criminal justice system who assisted us in completion of this review. Virtually
everyone we came into contact - district attorneys, judges, public defenders, sheriffs, constituent
groups, employees, and concerned citizens – willingly provided information, documents,
comments, and suggestions on the strengths and weaknesses of the department with the hope and
belief that this process would improve its ability to serve and protect the citizens of the state of
Oklahoma.
We extend our appreciation to the staff at the Oklahoma Department of Corrections who were
extremely generous with their time and cooperated and accommodated our request for
information, access to documents, and open access to their facilities over the course of this
project. Without the assistance of the many line staff and managers who took time from there
assigned duties to explain their operations and programs, the analysis contained in this report
would not have been possible. Neville Massie and Pam Ramsey, the Director’s Executive
Assistants, provided invaluable assistance in obtaining department data and coordinating the
logistics of our review. We in particular acknowledge the cooperation of Director Justin Jones.
His openness and willingness to candidly share his perceptions of the challenges facing the
department made a major contribution to this report. In addition, his leadership set the tone for all
the staff of the department to view this process as an opportunity to improve the operations and
performance of all aspects of the department, rather than a process that would hinder and criticize
their performance.
We also acknowledge the support and assistance of the staff of the Criminal Justice Resource
Center who provided an extraordinary amount of data support and analysis to our project team.
Similarly, the research staff of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
provided critical support to our assessment of the Oklahoma Drug Courts.
We also wish to express our appreciation to the members of the Oklahoma Senate and House of
Representatives that commissioned this study and provided ongoing feedback throughout the
process. Their sincere commitment to an objective, comprehensive assessment of the state
correctional system was apparent throughout the process. Finally, the staff of the Legislative
Service Bureau, and the staff members of both the House and Senate provided helpful direction
and support through this project.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 16, 2007, the Oklahoma Legislative Service Bureau contracted with MGT of America,
Inc. for a comprehensive performance review of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC)
and related criminal justice functions. The scope this performance review is as follows:
MGT of America will complete a comprehensive performance review of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. MGT will conduct a review of the
department’s operations with a primary focus on improving efficiency, reducing
costs, and planning for the growth of the system’s inmate population in a manner
consistent with the public’s safety.
During the course of the review, MGT conducted regular briefings for members and staff of the
legislature to advise them of the project’s progress; discuss any impediments or problems
encountered in the course of completing the review; obtain feedback from the members on the
project’s direction and scope; and summarize preliminary observations and findings.
This report summarizes MGT’s observations, findings, and recommendations.

Analysis of Prison Population Growth
The Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center (CJRC) calculates population projections for
DOC. CJRC projections indicate that DOC’s prisoner population will rise from about 25,000
today to nearly 29,000 by fiscal 2016 (Exhibit 1-1).
EXHIBIT 1-1
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Population Growth
Projections Through 2016
30,000

28,760

29,000

28,872

28,537
28,065

28,235

27,831

28,000
27,459
27,035
27,000
26,316
26,000
25,416

25,000

24,000

23,000
FY 07

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

FY 16

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Page 1-1

Executive Summary

The expected increase of nearly 4,000 inmates over the next ten years is particularly notable
given that the current forecast assumes no increases in the numbers of persons sentenced to prison
by the courts, and no increases in admissions for probation or parole violations. Contrary to these
assumptions however, DOC did experience an increase in admissions in fiscal 2007. If this trend
continues, the prison population will be higher than forecasted by CJRC.
Despite these concerns, there are sound reasons to assume that there will be no significant
increases in prison admissions over the next decade. The so-called “at-risk” population (males
aged 18 to 35) is not expected to increase in the next decade. Furthermore, Oklahoma crime rates
have declined over the past decade (as they have in all states) and the volume of arrests has
remained flat.
MGT found that virtually all of the projected growth is a consequence of longer periods of
imprisonment associated with the “85%” sentencing laws, accompanied by a very low parole
grant rate.
In 2006, 18.9 percent of eligible inmates received parole from prison (Exhibit 1-2). The parole
grant rate has fluctuated dramatically over time, but has declined over the last four years and is
now significantly lower than in most other states.
EXHIBIT 1-2
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Parole Grant Rates,
1991-2006
50%

Effective Grant Rate = percentage of inmates who
were eligible for parole/commutation who were released
from prison.

Percent of Eligible Inmates Released

40.8%

40%

The 18.9% rate of 2006 represents a 39% drop since
2003 and 54% drop since 1991.

37.7%
33.9%

31.2%

30.9%

30%

27.6%
25.2% 25.3%
21.7%

21.6%
18.2% 18.9%

20%
14.8%
13.0%

10%

8.0% 7.5%

0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Calendar Year

Source: Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board.

Page 1-2

Executive Summary

The current population projections indicate that the number of offenders incarcerated for “85%”
crimes will nearly double over the next ten years. As the new admissions for these offenses stack
up in the prison system, and the parole rate remains low, the natural outcome will be more growth
in the population.
Our analysis indicates that the methodology used to develop these projections is generally sound.
Even so, MGT makes a number of technical recommendations to improve the forecasting
process:


adopt a jurisdiction-based population projection that includes the DOC
population in local jails.



commission an independent review of the simulation protocol used by the
independent consultant and associated training, to help ensure that its staff has
a complete understanding of the model.



create and develop a new admissions assumption using more sophisticated
statistical methods that take demographic, crime, arrest and court sentencing
trends into account.



form an assumptions consensus committee to review the key assumptions
(new admissions, violator return rates and parole grant rates) used in the
baseline projection and fiscal impact statements.



expand the current projection report to provide more information on its
assumptions and analysis.



eliminate the CJRC database’s data entry backlog.



issue projections every six months.



upgrade the Prophet simulation software to the more current Wizard
Simulation model.



track admissions and releases in addition to prison population for accuracy on
a monthly basis.

We believe it is critical that CJRC’s executive director implement the recommendations of this
report to ensure that the organization maintains a reputation for non-partisan, reliable analysis.

System Crowding
DOC has a current capacity of 24,845 beds, including all contract jail beds, private prisons and
halfway houses. At the end of November 2007, the system held 24,124 inmates. Given the
projected growth of the prison population, DOC must either expand its present capacity of 24,845
to at least 28,872 beds by fiscal 2016, or implement other program alternatives that will slow the
projected growth.
Exhibit 1-3 details DOC’s current (fiscal 2008) capacity expansion plans, as well as requested
capacity expansion projects included in the fiscal 2009 budget request, which would add a net
total of 3,769 beds to the prison system.
Page 1-3

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-3
DOC Fiscal 2009 Capacity Expansion Plan
Project

Total
Beds

FY 08 Budget
Work Centers
100
Clara Waters
294
James Crabtree
200
Jihn Lilly
150
NE OK Corr Center
350
subototal
1,094
Proposed FY 09 New Facilities
Bill Johnson
608
Dick Conner
300
James Crabtree
600
Reformatory
300
Alford
600
Key
40
Harp and LARC
300
OSP
1,568
subtotal
4,316
Total
6,504

Net Beds FY Open
100
294
115
150
350
1,009

2008
2008
2009
2009
2009

608
300
378
300
337
27
281
1,044
3,275
5,293

2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012

Secure
Beds
21,152
21,152
21,152
21,267
21,417
21,767
21,767
22,375
22,675
23,053
23,353
23,690
23,717
23,998
25,042
25,042
25,042

Total
EOY Capacity
Capacity
Shortfall
(940)
24,476
(1,446)
24,576
(1,446)
24,870
24,985
(2,050)
25,135
(1,900)
25,485
(1,550)
25,485
(1,550)
26,093
26,393
26,771
27,071
27,408
27,435
27,716
28,760
28,760
28,760

(942)
(1,066)
(688)
(388)
(51)
(396)
(115)
695
695
695

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Given the current population projections, the department’s requested expansion plans will add
sufficient beds to the prison system to address capacity needs up to 2016.

Page 1-4

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-4
Oklahoma DOC Capacity Plan vs. Projected Population,
2008-2016
30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

Population
Capacity

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000
FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11

FY 12

FY 14

FY 15

FY 16

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

The proposed capacity expansion plan appears warranted and appropriate. To ensure that this and
future expansion plans prioritize capacity expansions by cost-effectiveness and operational need,
we strongly recommend the department commission a formal engineering and architectural
master plan of the department’s facility and bed needs. Such a master plan can address the type
and location of proposed new capacity, as well as the costs and benefits of expanding current
facilities versus construction of new institutions.
We also note that DOC’s current expansion plan does not adequately address the most immediate
capacity issue facing the department at this time, a shortage of maximum-security beds. The
department needs these beds now, but the additional maximum-security beds included in the plan
do not become available until 2012. DOC has attempted to address this issue by requesting funds
to contract for maximum-security beds at the Davis Correctional Center in its fiscal 2009 budget.
Davis, operated by Correctional Corporation of America (CCA), is constructing two 330-bed
maximum-security units, including a 60-bed segregation unit. We recommend approval of
funding for a multi-year contract for this bed expansion. We also recommend that DOC evaluate
opportunities for further expansion of private prison capacity that may serve as an alternative or
adjunct to its capacity expansion plan.

Page 1-5

Executive Summary

Privatization
Oklahoma’s use of private prisons has dropped by 26 percent since fiscal 2002
(Exhibit 1-5). Key factors behind this shift include the state’s purchase of the former Dominion
facility; the termination of DOC’s agreement with CCA for the Diamondback facility; the end of
the department’s agreement with Cornell for the use of its facilities; and the development of
additional contract bedspace in the halfway house and contract county jail programs. As a result
of these actions, and ongoing growth of the prison population, the percentage of the state’s
offenders housed in private prisons has dropped from a high of 27 percent in fiscal 2001 to a low
of 19 percent by the end of fiscal 2007.
EXHIBIT 1-5
Private Prison Population, 2000-2007
6,500
6,092
6,000

5,925

5,907

5,500
5,006
5,000
4,578

4,618

4,632

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

4,569

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Private prison beds currently cost the state $47.14 per bed per day, a rate significantly below the
$51.94 cost of the most directly comparable state-run medium-security institutions (Exhibit 1-6).

Page 1-6

FY 07

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-6
Per Diem Cost by Type of Facility, Fiscal 2006
$70.00

$60.07
$60.00
$51.94
$48.82

$50.00

$47.14

$39.23

$40.00

$36.02

$35.07

$30.00

$27.00

$20.00

$10.00

$State Maximum

State Medium

CCC's

Private
Institutions

Halfway Houses

Work Centers

County Jails

County Jail
Backup

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The relative cost efficiency of the private prisons appears attributable to the fact that DOC
institutions tend to be antiquated, poorly designed facilities that require higher staffing levels to
compensate for severe security deficiencies inherent in their physical plant. The private prisons,
by contrast, are relatively new institutions designed to facilitate the efficient use of staff resources
and to enhance security.
To conduct a fair comparison of the state’s cost for private prisons versus state-operated facilities,
we compared the expected cost of private operation of the new maximum-security facilities at
Davis to the estimated amount DOC would spend to operate comparable facilities. Our analysis
shows a per diem cost of $62.34 for private operation of the facility ($58 contract rate + $4.34 in
associated indirect costs) versus a $65.36 per diem for government operation, a difference of 4.8
percent.
Private operation, then, appears cheaper for the state up to a contract rate of $61.03 per bed.
Above that price, department management is the cheaper option.
Cost however, is only one of the many factors that require evaluation in a thorough assessment of
privatization. The ability of the private sector to develop and open new facilities quickly is a
critical advantage. On the other hand, relying upon private correctional capacity involves an
element of risk, as demonstrated by DOC’s recent loss of critical bedspace due to Cornell’s
termination of its contract with the state. Even so, our report recommends improved systems for
contract control and management, and an approach to procurement that emphasizes competition
and diversification, to address this concern.
Page 1-7

Executive Summary

Classification
DOC’s custody classification system uses a point system to determine an appropriate custody
level for each inmate. System scores indicate that the vast majority of the population does not
pose a significant management problem.
MGT’s analysis, however, indicates that DOC makes excessive use of discretionary overrides,
which allow classification personnel to make changes to the security level indicated by the point
system. All too often, overrides are used to make changes in inmate custody levels solely to
match available bedspace. In particular, inmates who score as maximum or minimum security
often are overridden to medium, because of the availability of bedspace in that security level.
This practice defeats the purpose of classification. Custody levels should be based upon an
individual inmate’s risk factors, not the type of bed available at any given time.
In addition, unlike most states, DOC does not operate general population maximum-security
beds. All current maximum-security capacity is on permanent lockdown status. We recommend
that DOC lock down maximum-custody inmates only for administrative and disciplinary
segregation purposes and establish a maximum-security general population status.

County Jail Beds
The number of offenders committed to the state correctional system, but “backed up” in local
county jails, has more than doubled since fiscal 2000 (Exhibit 1-7). Backlogged offenders spent
an average of 55 days in jail before DOC reception, a substantial increase over the 2005 average
of 47 days.
EXHIBIT 1-7
DOC Inmates in County Jails
Backup Population, 2000-2007

N u m b er o f In carcerated O ffen d ers

1 8 00
1 6 00
1 4 00
1 2 00

1,536
1,303
1,108

1 0 00
8 00
6 00
4 00
2 00
0

F

1,323
1,166

707

637

0
Y2

00
F

0
Y2

629

01
F

0
Y2

02
F

0
Y2

03
F

0
Y2

04
F

0
Y2

05
F

0
Y2

06
F

0
Y2

07

En d o f Ye ar

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 1-8

Executive Summary

With an estimated total statewide jail capacity of 11,727, DOC’s backlog represents 11 percent of
the state’s total county jail bed capacity. Including the 645 county jail beds under formal contracts
with DOC, the department occupies 16.7 percent of Oklahoma county jail beds.
The jail backup directly relates to DOC’s capacity issues. As its available capacity diminishes, the
department simply cannot accept newly sentenced offenders on a timely basis. With the present
reception center operating at maximum capacity, and internal options to move inmates laterally
within DOC restricted due to capacity limitations, the only relief valve available is to delay the
intake of new inmates. As a result, the county jail backup has become an indispensable element of
DOC bed capacity
We recommend that DOC develop a strategic plan to establish and maintain a 45-day cap on jail
backup detention. To achieve this, DOC should expand its reception capacity to a level that
allows for the processing of all admissions in a routine manner. Whenever feasible, however,
DOC should continue to contract with sheriffs for available jail beds. These provide the
department with a dependable source of relatively cheap secure beds for inmates who do not need
extensive programming, while assisting the counties with critical funding.
In addition, we recommend that the legislature clarify and expand DOC’s responsibility for the
medical expenses of state inmates in county jail. Current law restricts DOC from reimbursing
counties for inmate medical care under most circumstances. This policy places a substantial fiscal
burden on the counties and can interfere with medical care DOC inmates may require, as the
policy provides counties with incentive to defer medical treatment in anticipation of the inmate’s
transfer to DOC. The inmate may arrive at DOC in worse physical condition and requiring more
medical care due to the lack of timely treatment.

Drug Courts
The Oklahoma Drug Court (ODC) program is a district court-supervised substance abuse
treatment program that offers nonviolent felony offenders an alternative to prison. Offenders
enter the drug court program by pleading guilty to a specific charge and punishment that includes
a substantial prison sentence. In exchange for successful completion of the treatment program, the
court dismisses the original charge. For repeated noncompliance with the program, however, the
individual can be terminated from the program and be committed to prison as originally agreed.
The program has two unique components that set it apart from those in most other jurisdictions.
First, its stated intent is to accept only persons who, had the drug courts not existed, would have
received a sizable prison term. Most drug courts in the nation do not explicitly target prisonbound defendants. Second, if the offender fails to complete the drug court program, a lengthy
prison term must be served.
Since its inception, more than 7,000 people have been admitted to the ODC. In fiscal 2007, nearly
2,000 additional offenders were admitted. In that year, the program had funded capacity for
approximately 4,000 persons.

Page 1-9

Executive Summary

There have been 3,504 official terminations from ODC, with about 58 percent successfully
completing the terms of the program. The average length of time spent in the program is 17
months, with successful terminations spending about 20 months in the program and unsuccessful
terminations about 13 months.

Program Characteristics
Drug court participants are primarily white (67 percent) and male (57 percent), with a
disproportionate number of females (43 percent) in the program (Exhibit 1-8). The primary drugs
used are methamphetamine, alcohol, and marijuana. Tulsa and Oklahoma counties are the largest
contributors to drug court admissions. The principal charges participants face are possession of
controlled substance (51 percent) followed by DUI (21 percent).
EXHIBIT 1-8
Characteristics of Persons
Admitted To and Completing Drug Court
Fiscal 2002 to 2007
Attribute
Gender
Male
Female
Race
White
Black
Native American
Other
Average Age
Controlling Offense
Possession of CDS
DUI/APC
Distribution of CDS
Manufacture of Drugs
Burglary II
Other misc. crimes
Prior Arrests
None
One
Two or more

%
57%
43%
67%
15%
17%
1%
33 years
51%
21%
6%
4%
3%
15%
22%
18%
60%

Attribute
Prior Felony Convictions
None
One
Two or more
Drug Of Choice
Alcohol
Cannabis
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Other
Primary County
Tulsa Drug
Tulsa DUI
Oklahoma
Pontotoc
Creek
Wagoner
Rogers
Seminole

%
37%
22%
41%
27%
20%
32%
14%
7%
15%
9%
15%
8%
5%
5%
4%
4%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The majority of drug court participants have prior arrests (78 percent) and prior felony
convictions (63 percent). Furthermore, the percent of persons entering the drug courts with prior
felony convictions has steadily increased since 2002.

Page 1-10

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-9
Percent of Drug Court Admissions with Prior Felony Convictions
Fiscal Year
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007

0 Priors
46.4%
41.3%
28.8%
29.5%
28.6%
26.9%

1+ Priors
53.6%
58.7%
71.2%
70.5%
71.4%
73.1%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

On the other hand, a sizeable proportion of ODC participants had no prior arrest (22 percent) or
prior convictions (37 percent), creating some question as to whether these participants are truly
being diverted from prison.
Program failures are most likely to be terminated for technical violations, rather than a new
crime. Program failures experienced an average of 4.6 violations cited, primarily for positive drug
tests or being late for treatment.

Diversion of Offenders from Prison
There is little evidence that ODC has actually diverted significant numbers of offenders from
prison. The total number of people admitted to prison has continued to increase despite the
initiation of the drug courts, as have prison admissions for offenses typically handled in drug
court. MGT found no discernible reduction in historic rates of increase in the DOC prison
population in these crime categories. Similarly, there is no evidence that suggests prison
admissions for these offenses would have been even higher without the drug court program. In
fact, law enforcement data indicates that arrests for drug crimes have actually declined since
2002.

Cost Savings
The primary way that a drug court can save, or more correctly avert, state expenditures is to
divert people who, had the drug court not existed, would have been incarcerated. Additional costs
savings can occur if there is evidence that persons going through the program have lower
recidivism rates.
MHSAS has estimated that the drug court program has saved the state (or averted the spending
of) $263 million over a four-year period, based on the following assumptions:




4,026 persons are admitted to the drug courts in a single year.
All drug court admissions would have been incarcerated with an average
sentence of 64 months.
A very small proportion of participants fail the program over a four-year
period.
Page 1-11

Executive Summary

Our analysis shows, however, that the MHSAS savings estimates are extremely excessive. As
previously discussed, there are no data to suggest a significant reduction in prison admissions or
the prison population for the targeted drug offenses. In fact, both prison admissions and the daily
prison population for targeted drug court crimes have grown at the same rate as or a slightly
higher rate than those for other crimes.
In addition, the data show a significant number of drug court admissions have no prior arrests or
convictions. It is highly unlikely that these offenders would otherwise have been sent to prison in
the absence of the ODC program. Finally, while MHSAS assumes the vast majority of program
participants successfully complete it, the data shows that 37 to 41 percent of the drug court
admissions result in unsuccessful terminations, and as a result, serve lengthy prison sentences.
MGT developed an alternative savings projection model that identifies the level of diversions
from prison and program failure rate required to make the program cost-effective. For success
rates, Exhibit 1-10 employs a 67 percent reported in a previous study to show the effect on costs.
With a 67 percent success rate, the program’s total annual costs are $43.6 million. The direct
ODC program cost is only $14.5 million. The more expensive component of the program is the
prison time associated with program terminations, which totals $25.4 million. The average cost
per program participant is $22,970.
EXHIBIT 1-10
Costs of Oklahoma Drug Courts: 67 Percent Success Rate
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% that Fail/Succeed
Number of Failures
Time in program/prison
ODC Cost Per Month
Drug Court Program Cost
Prison Term
% Time Served
Cost Per Year Served
Total Prison Costs
Probation Supervision
Probation Costs Per Month
Total Probation Costs
Re-imprisonment Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Drug Court Admission

Failure
1,900
33%
627
13
$417
$3,396,250
74 mos
39%
$16,824
$25,369,498
13 mos
$60.38
$492,157
$1,708,922
$30,966,828

Success
67%
1,273
21
$417
$11,138,750
0 mos
0
0
0
20 mos
$60.38
$1,537,275
$0
$12,676,025

Total Costs

$14,535,000

$25,369,498

$2,029,432
$1,708,922
$43,642,852
$22,970

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Assuming 75 percent of the program participants are in fact diverted from prison, the ODC
diverts an average of 1,425 offenders from prison each year (Exhibit 1-11). The annual cost of
incarcerating these offenders would total $57.1 million, or $30,074 per admission. Based on these
assumptions, the ODC program would save the state nearly $14 million annually.
Page 1-12

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-11
Oklahoma Drug Courts:
Averted Prison Costs With 75 Percent Diversion
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% Prison Bound
Number Admitted
% Recidivating
Number Recidivated
Initial Prison Sentence
% Time Served
Costs Per Year Served
Initial Imprisonment Costs
Parole Supervision Time
Parole Costs Per Month
Parole Supervision Costs
Re-incarceration Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Prison Admission

Failure

28%
399
64
39%
$16,824
$13,962,574
39
$60.38
$940,537
$3,909,521
$18,812,632

Success
1,900
75%
1,425
72%
1,026
64
39%
$16,824
$35,903,762
39
$60.38
$2,418,523.32
$0
$38,322,285

Total Costs

$49,866,336

$3,359,060
$3,909,521
$57,134,917
$30,074

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

If one makes a lower, more realistic assumption on prison diversions, however, these savings
disappear. If ODC diverts only 25 percent of its admissions from incarceration, the number
diverted from prison shrinks to 475. The cost of incarcerating this group drops to $19 million or
$25 million less than the cost of using ODC for the same cohort.
This analysis indicates that, to ensure that ODC is cost-effective, the program requires a diversion
rate of 75 percent and a failure rate of no more than 40 percent. These parameters ensure the
program targets participants appropriately and significantly reduces the high costs of the ODC
program failures.

Projected Need for Drug Court Slots
One of the issues that need to be assessed on an annual basis is the number of drug court slots that
are needed to meet the demand for the commitments to the program. This can be easily estimated
by using the annual number of admissions to drugs court per year (approximately 2,000 in
FY2007) and the current length of stay (17 months) for all admissions and releases. Using the
formula of admissions x length of stay (in months) divided by 12 months produces an average
daily population of drug court participants of 2,833 as shown below:
(2,000 admissions x 17 months length of stay) / 12 months = 2,833 daily population.
The calculation of the number of necessary slots would be lower if the drug court program were
in fact more restrictive, as suggested by this assessment, in whom they admitted to the program.
For example, only accepting people with at least one prior felony arrest would reduce the
Page 1-13

Executive Summary

admissions by 37 percent from 2,000 to 1,260 and thus lower the estimated daily population from
2,833 to 1,785. On the other hand increasing the success rate would increase the length of stay in
the program as fewer people would fail and terminate early. Assuming the success rate went from
58 percent to 65 percent, the average length of the offenders in the program would increase by
about two months thus increasing the daily population from 2,833 to 3,200.
For all of these reasons it is essential that the number of program slots funded by the legislature
should be reassessed on an annual basis. Based on data available from 2007 it would appear that
the current need is in the area of 3,000 funded program slots, not the current 4,000 funded slots.
It would be necessary to validate on the calculation on a regular basis to determine the
participation levels and vacancy rates are by each individual county.

Drug Court Conclusions
Oklahoma’s drug courts have a high degree of support, credibility, and impact on recovery and
recidivism. They are well-conceived and reflect practices that meet or exceed national standards.
The next generation of drug courts across the nation is increasing its use of research and other
locally available data to inform decisions about participation, programming and supervision. In
other words, they are fine-tuning their ability to match offenders to the appropriate court,
treatment and supervision strategies. Oklahoma is ready for this next level of implementation.
This report identifies a series of findings and recommendations to further refine ODC. Key
recommendations include:


cap prison sentences for revocations so that they more closely mirror
sentences for non-drug court participants with similar criminal histories.



conduct research on the type of offender and offense most appropriate for drug
courts.



allow for greater use of judicial review to reduce the undue influence of
district attorneys in selecting cases for ODCs.



require all drug court program participants to have at least one prior felony
conviction.



the number of program slots funded by the legislature should be reassessed on
an annual basis.

Community Sentencing
Oklahoma’s community sentencing program provides a community sanction that includes
deferred or suspended sentences for eligible felony offenders. Offenders eligible for participation
in the program include those convicted or who have pled guilty to a felony offense, and found to
be in the moderate range of risk as determined by the Level of Service Inventory assessment
instrument. Those convicted or pleading guilty of the “85%” felonies are excluded from
participation in the program.

Page 1-14

Executive Summary

As of November 1, 2007, Oklahoma had 3,056 offenders on active community sentencing status.
Sixty-seven percent of these participants were drug or DUI offenders, meaning that the program’s
target population substantially overlaps with that of the drug court program.
The Community Service Sentencing Program (CSSP) reimburses local jails for housing
community sentencing offenders. In theory, the program provides a diversion from prison.
However, 75 percent of the program’s participants have either no prior felony convictions or one
prior felony, indicating they have a very low probability of serving a prison sentence for their
offense.
MGT recommends the establishment of target population criteria that clearly differentiate this
program from the drug courts. DOC should complete a long-term study of program participant
recidivism to ensure that it is reducing prison commitments as intended. We also recommend the
elimination of the CSSP program, as it does not appear to target prison-bound offenders.

Parole Decision-Making
Parole review in Oklahoma is a complex process that involves two separate agencies, the
Department of Corrections and the Pardon and Parole Board, as well as the governor, who has
final review and approval on any releases. Oklahoma is the only state in the nation where the
governor is directly responsible for the routine approval of all parole releases from the state’s
correctional system.
Parole approval rates in Oklahoma have fluctuated from a high of 41 percent to a low of 7.5
percent over the last 16 years. The current approval rate is 18 percent, a rate much lower than
those of other states with discretionary parole release programs (Exhibit 1-12).
EXHIBIT 1-12
State Parole Rates
60%
50%

56%

55%

51%

40%
30%
20%

30%

30%
18%

10%
0%
Texas

Pennsylvania

Nevada

Michigan

Maryland

Oklahoma

Source: MGT of America.

Page 1-15

Executive Summary

In April 2007, the Pardon and Parole Board implemented risk assessment guidelines to improve
its decision-making process. The risk assessment guidelines classify each offender as low,
moderate or high risk, based on a recidivism study funded by the National Institute of
Corrections.
Experience with the guidelines to date shows that while investigators recommend individuals for
parole to the board in about 45 percent of the cases they review, the board recommends parole
consistently at a lower rate (about 30 to 35 percent). In terms of risk level, about 75 percent of the
cases heard are at low to moderate risk of recidivism. This indicates that a significant proportion
of the eligible parole population pose an acceptable risk for parole. Board recommendations are
consistent with the guidelines; the highest grant rates are associated with the lowest-risk group
and the lowest grant rates are associated with the highest-risk group.
To illustrate the effects of parole decision-making on the prison population, we projected the
impact of increasing the overall parole grant rate to 30 percent and 40 percent, respectively
(Exhibit 1-13). These assumptions are based on the fact that the board’s hearing investigators
recommend parole in about 45 percent of all the cases reviewed, and that the board itself
recommends parole in approximately 30 to 35 percent of the cases. Our results show that under
both scenarios, the prison population would cease to grow and actually decline, thereby
eliminating the need for additional bed capacity.
EXHIBIT 1-13
Impact Current of Alternative Parole Grant Rates On The Prison Population
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Current Projection
18% Grant Rate
24,561
25,416
26,316
27,035
27,459
27,831
28,065
28,235
28,537
28,760
28,872

40% Grant Rate

30%Grant Rate

24,545
25,272
25,506
23,994
23,320
23,139
23,168
23,350
23,434
23,664
23,937

24,591
25,375
25,743
24,896
24,222
24,244
24,396
24,356
24,584
24,777
24,954

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

However, such parole grant rates would require an increase in the number of parole officers
necessary to supervise significantly larger parole and probation populations.
We recommend that current statutory and constitutional provisions that require gubernatorial
review of all parole releases be modified to require the governor’s review of only select heinous
offenses. Routine parole decisions should be the sole responsibility of the Pardon and Parole
Board.
Page 1-16

Executive Summary

Community Corrections
DOC’s Division of Community Corrections is responsible for the supervision and oversight of the
department’s correctional centers and halfway houses, and for the monitoring of offenders placed
under the custody of the division’s parole and probation officers (PPOs). As of September 30,
2007, the division was responsible for supervising 27,415 probation offenders, 3,637 parolees,
1,109 inmates housed in correctional center facilities and 1,307 inmates placed in contracted
halfway houses. In addition, the division administers several specialized programs including GPS
supervision, work release, work centers and a variety of community-based treatment programs.

Community Supervision
In 2005, the division began implementing “Evidence Based Practices” as the guiding principle for
its supervision of offenders. Evidenced Based Practices (EBPs) are usually described as operating
policies and procedures developed from the application of scientific, empirically based research
into approaches that can be proven to positively affect inmate behavior. It is sometimes called the
“what works” approach.
To monitor the impact of EBP, the DOC has established and is tracking specific, measurable
outcomes concerning the offender population completing probation and parole. Most of these
measures indicate that the impact has been positive. The implementation of EBP has allowed the
division to redirect its resources toward those areas, programs and services that, based on research
and evaluation, appear to offer the greatest impact on recidivism rates. One result has been a
movement of low-risk offenders to administrative (inactive) caseloads, thus allowing PPOs to
focus on offenders who present high or moderate risks.
As the number of probationers on active status has decreased, the average caseload size has fallen
as well, from a high of 95.6 per PPO in 2003 to a 75.6 in June 2007. A more recent calculation of
the average caseload indicates that as of September 30, 2007, the caseload had dropped further, to
73 cases per PPO. This is a significant reduction that permits officers to work more effectively.
On the other hand, any premature movement of offenders to administrative caseloads is a
legitimate concern. Recognizing this fact, DOC should carefully monitor the supervision process
to ensure that it is effective and does not negatively affect public safety. We recommend that
DOC expand its efforts to monitor the performance and recidivism rates of offenders placed on
administrative status and report its findings to the legislature annually.
DOC’s efforts to maximize the effectiveness of limited staff resources have been complicated in
the Tulsa and Central districts by increases in the workload associated with drug courts. The
concentration of drug court cases in these two districts has significantly affected the size and
composition of regular caseloads. We recommend that the legislature fund the additional 50 PPO
positions it authorized two years ago to assist in reducing caseload sizes.

Sex Offender Programs
Like most states, Oklahoma state and local governments have placed extensive restrictions on
where sex offenders can reside. While all areas are affected by these measures, the Central and
Tulsa districts in particular have few areas available for housing sex offenders in accordance with
Page 1-17

Executive Summary

these legal requirements. PPOs interviewed agree that sex offenders are being driven out of the
metropolitan areas and into rural Oklahoma or “underground.” MGT recommends that DOC
propose legislative solutions to the problems related to finding housing for sex offenders posed by
restrictions on their residential placement.
Furthermore, present legal requirements effectively discourage the judicial use of global
positioning satellite (GPS) monitoring for sex offenders. State law requires that sex offenders
designated as “habitual” or “aggravated” must be monitored through GPS monitoring for the
duration of the required registration period, if so ordered by the court. DOC staff said that, since
registration as a sex offender lasts for life, judges rarely use it. The legislature should alter the
statutes to encourage greater use of GPS for sex offender cases. One option would be to permit a
fixed period of GPS monitoring that is not tied directly to the period of registration.

Community Correctional Centers and Halfway Houses
Eligibility for placement in a community facility depends upon time until release; the nature of
the offense; criminal and adjustment history; and classification and custody level. The following
table summarizes the amount of time remaining to be served before an offender may be placed in
a community correctional center or halfway house.
EXHIBIT 1-14
Time Served: Limitations on Community Placement
Status

Remaining Days

New Reception - with no disqualify criteria
Minimum
Minimum w/restrictions
57.O.S.521 – regardless of security level
Halfway House/Work Release

1,460
2,930
760
210
1,095

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

These standards rank among the most liberal community placement criteria in the nation,
allowing some offenders to be placed in a community setting as much as eight years before the
end of their sentences. That is three times greater than time requirements found in other states.
Many jurisdictions restrict community placement to the last 18 to 24 months before release, while
others have even more restrictive criteria. We do not believe any further loosening of these
criteria to further increase community placements would be prudent.

Supervision Fees; Fee Collection Waivers
DOC collects a $40 per month supervision fee for each offender on supervision unless the
imposition of the fee would impose an unnecessary hardship. In fiscal 2007, SOC collected more
than $5 million in these fees.

Page 1-18

Executive Summary

District supervisors can waive the collection of these fees, and do so for a variety of reasons. In
practice, it appears that fees are waived for reasons other than hardship. During the course of the
staff interviews, probation officers routinely stated that the supervision fees are waived as an
incentive and reward for compliance with supervision requirements and the completion of
required programs. This practice is consistent with EBP policy and practices of evidence-based
practices and appears to have been adopted without modification of the department’s operating
procedures. We recommend that the department review the fee collection process and bring its
policy into alignment with current operating practices.

Staff Training
State law requires all probation and parole officers to meet all of the training and qualifications
for peace officers required by Section 3311 of Title 70 of the statutes, as determined by the
Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET). This requirement results in an
initial training requirement in excess of 720 hours in the first year of PPO employment. In
January 2008, this requirement will increase to 851 hours of required training.
As a result of these requirements, 40.7 percent of the available work hours in a PPO’s first year of
employment are devoted to training. Furthermore, much of this training has little relevance for
probation and parole officers. Training subjects include Field Sobriety Testing (32 hours),
Radar/Lydar (24 hours) and Crime Scene Investigation (40 hours).
We recommend that the legislature amend the CLEET requirements to permit the creation of a
special peace officer category, with an accompanying modification of the training curriculum that
is more consistent with the duties and responsibilities of a probation and parole officer. CLEET
should eliminate those elements of the training that have no relevance to a PPO’s duties and
responsibilities and, where possible, substitute relevant training that would enhance and improve
their performance.

Institutions
MGT’s review included a comprehensive on-site review of the operations of 13 separate
institutions, including interviews with administrative, supervisory and line staff; a staffing
analysis; and a review of available data and documents related to institutional operations.

Institutional Staffing
Officer staffing in many DOC institutions is below advisable levels. The department has
established a policy of budgeting all programs, offices, and institutions at 82 percent of
authorized staffing levels. Establishment of such an arbitrary staffing level, without some
consideration of each institution’s specific post requirements, inmate classification levels and
physical plant inevitably will produce poor staffing decisions.
MGT recommends that DOC prioritize its institutional staff budgets to ensure that the facilities
facing the greatest problems in maintaining safety and security receive the staff resources they
need. Our analysis indicates that the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP), Oklahoma State
Reformatory (OSR), James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC), Lexington Assessment &
Page 1-19

Executive Summary

Reception Center (LARC), and the Jackie Brannon Correctional Center (JBCC) are particularly
understaffed and require additional officers to assure safe, effective operations. We recommend
adding 42 officers to these facilities as indicated in Exhibit 1-15.
EXHIBIT 1-15
Recommended Staffing Levels For Five DOC Institutions

Authorized Staff
Funded Staff
Filled Positions
Additional Staff Required
Recommended Minimum
Funding level

OSP
402
330
292
12
342
(85%)

OSR
166
136
101
10
146
(87.95%)

JCCC
125
102.5
81
7
109
(87.2%)

JBCC
79
65
62
5
70
(88.6%)

LARC
196
161
133
8
169
(86.2%)

Source: MGT of America.

Even where staffing budgets are adequate, many institutions are facing severe difficulties in
filling vacancies. At the time of MGT’s review, OSR had 35 officer vacancies from its budgeted
staffing level; OSP had 38. Factors driving high officer vacancy rates include uncompetitive
salaries; tight labor markets in many areas of the state; the demanding nature of correctional
officer work; and a very slow hiring process.
We recommend that DOC enhance its statewide recruitment strategies to better assist facilities
that are not able to meet funded staffing levels. The hiring process should be evaluated to develop
alternatives that could expedite hiring. DOC already hires some staff as temporary employees
while they complete the necessary pre-employment background checks; it should build on this
initiative to help it aggressively recruit new employees.
Retention of existing staff, particularly newly hired staff, is another difficulty for the department.
OSP, for example, lost more than 30 percent of the new staff hired in fiscal 2007 in that year.
The retention issue is even more serious for the private prisons. Lawton Correctional Center hires
an average of 34 new officers every month, and loses 27 officers every month. Retention issues
are similar to those hurting recruitment: low salaries, ample alternative employment opportunities
and the challenges of correctional work.

Physical Plant and Infrastructure
Six of DOC’s current facilities were not originally built as prisons. These institutions are
inefficient and present serious security issues. All of them contain structures more than 75 years
old. Other facilities, while designed for corrections, still are antiquated and in very poor
condition. MGT found uniform evidence of serious deterioration to DOC’s physical plant and
infrastructure. The existing situation at some facilities places the health and safety of staff and
inmates alike at risk.

Page 1-20

Executive Summary

The most common needs are roof repairs and electrical system upgrades. Others include
wastewater treatment plant upgrades, boiler repairs and replacement, new kitchen and dining
room facilities and additional emergency generators to cover vital security areas. In fiscal 2007.
DOC’s institutions submitted 200 capital outlay requests with an overall estimated cost exceeding
$490 million.
MGT recommends that a review of the capital needs of the department be included in the master
plan project recommended above. This will allow it to prioritize needed capital repairs and
determine the long-term costs and benefits of continuing to operate its older facilities, or
beginning to replace them.

Private Prison Operations
The state’s private correctional facilities are newer, well-maintained facilities, designed to
American Correctional Association standards and retaining their ACA accreditation to date. Their
designs and physical plants are clearly superior to the state’s facilities. The three prisons currently
under contract function well and generally correct deficiencies promptly when they occur.
The most serious issue concerning the private prisons is their seeming inability to retain
employees. In fiscal 2006, CCA’s Cimarron facility experienced a 58 percent staff turnover rate;
the company’s Davis facility reported 38 percent turnover. GEO’s Lawton facility is experiencing
a 69 percent staff turnover rate in 2007. These levels are dramatically higher than those
experienced in the state-run facilities.
Staff turnover at these levels creates legitimate concerns regarding staff preparedness. While the
private facilities all have training programs consistent with national standards, a continuing
reliance on inexperienced line employees to perform essential security responsibilities can lead to
problems. In fiscal 2006, the private prisons had an average of 0.42 serious incidents per 100
inmates, twice the public prisons’ rate of 0.21 per 100 inmates.

Prison Gangs
Prison gangs, sometimes called “security threat groups,” pose an ongoing threat to the security
and safety of other inmates and staff members, and are disruptive to the orderly management of
institutions. A number of prison systems have formally recognized the existence of gangs and
have developed strategies for dealing with them.
DOC has had a policy of not formally recognizing gangs or individuals affiliated with them. As a
result, the department has neither formal preventive measures nor a coordinated statewide
intelligence system to address the impact of gangs on daily operations. During fiscal 2006, six
DOC inmates were murdered as direct result of gang activity.
While the department is developing a gang intelligence policy and recently designated a gang
intelligence officer in the Internal Affairs Unit, the current response is limited and uncoordinated.
MGT recommends that develop a management plan to assess, identify and coordinate information
related to gangs and related individuals or activities. DOC should develop a comprehensive

Page 1-21

Executive Summary

intelligence system that includes trained staff members, an electronic data system and
coordination both within the department and with outside agencies to identify and answer
potential security threats in its facilities.

Housing and Classification
All adult offenders admitted to the DOC are received at the Lexington Assessment & Reception
Center, which has an operating capacity of 379 male reception beds and 39 female reception
beds. LARC receives between 40 and 60 inmates each day. Each week, the staff identifies the
number of inmates scheduled for intake and reception and determines the number of inmates that
must be transferred out of the facility to remain within capacity.
DOC facilities were housing more than 97 percent of the rated capacity as of November 5, 2007,
making it difficult to provide appropriate housing for newly assigned inmates and internal
transfers. When segregated housing, protective custody, death row, disciplinary, and medical
housing are excluded, the available bed space is extremely limited. As a result, a large number of
classification overrides are approved to ensure that inmates qualify for whatever bed space is
available. This practice results in mixed populations presenting various levels of risk, which puts
both inmates and staff in unsafe situations.
During an August site visit, MGT found that 16.3 percent of the Lawton population initially had
been classified as maximum security but overridden to medium security. Not coincidentally,
Lawton experienced two inmate homicides and 127 serious incidents since fiscal 2006. The Dick
Connor Correctional Center has had three inmate homicides in the past two years. This level of
violence is extremely unusual for a facility of this type and security level.
These issues underscore the importance of our recommendations to expand department capacity
in appropriate security classifications.

Health Care
From fiscal 2000 to 2007, DOC spending on health care rose by 72 percent, from nearly $40
million to more than $72 million. Improvements to service quality, increases in the inmate
population and medical cost inflation were the primary factors underlying this growth. Even with
this growth, DOC’s medical care costs appear very low compared to other correctional
departments. The per diem of $7.41 for prison medical care in Oklahoma in 2006 is about the
same as the national mean expenditure of state prison medical programs for 1997. The
department has taken active steps to contain medical costs, including contracting for
pharmaceutical services.
MGT examined DOC’s claims management and utilization review systems, which are provided
by Fiserv Health Harrington. Our audit of the claims data provided to us found a 24 percent error
rate, with more than $193,000 in payment and coding errors on just 148 claims. We also ran these
claims through an alternative provider network to test the cost-effectiveness of the rates DOC
paid; this resulted in a projected $1.2 million in savings on 100 claims. DOC should validate
these findings and if confirmed, assess alternatives to improve the accuracy of its claims
payments, and consider using alternative provider networks to achieve greater savings.
Page 1-22

Executive Summary

Our review of clinical staffing indicates that DOC should fill its existing authorized vacancies.
At the time of the last national study of correctional health care staffing, in 1999, Oklahoma had
the second-lowest ratio of health care workers to inmates in the nation, one for every 63 inmates.
This ratio has actually worsened since then, and now stands at one to 67 inmates. Combined with
a 39 percent turnover rate among medical staff, this places severe strain on DOC’s delivery of
health care services.
The department has only 42 infirmary beds to serve a population of more than 24,000 inmates.
This has caused unnecessary hospitalizations and may lead to denial of care. We recommend that
any expansion of department capacity incorporate additional infirmary space. DOC needs up to
50 additional infirmary beds to serve its current population adequately.

Female Offenders
Oklahoma has the nation’s highest female incarceration rate. Women make up 10.2 percent of
DOC’s population, far exceeding the national average. This is a complex issue resulting from a
combination of factors, including a shortage of local jail beds for the short-term incarceration of
female offenders; the availability of departmental mental health services; and an extensive use of
delayed sentencing options.
DOC should assess the number of jail beds and local sentencing options available for women to
determine if these options should be expanded. This review was unable to come to a definitive
conclusion on whether a lack of local incarceration beds is contributing to the high incarceration
rate for women. DOC also should monitor the use of delayed sentencing to ensure that it is not
being used simply as an alternative to local incarceration.

Information Technology
DOC lacks an effective system for management, planning and operating its information
technology (IT) resources. At present management of the IT functions resides in several different
divisions, hampering coordination of services. Furthermore, DOC’s core offender management
information system is unreliable, leaving the department in an extremely vulnerable position.
Electronic offender databases are essential for modern correctional agencies. They should provide
correctional staff and others with quick access to inmate demographics, offense histories,
sentence information and information on behavioral adjustment and program involvement. MGT
found serious deficiencies in DOC’s Offender Management System (OMS) that call its accuracy
and reliability into question. The department’s attempt to build its own replacement application,
the Criminal Offender Management Information Tracking system (COMIT), has been
unsuccessful to date, and appears unlikely to meet the department’s needs within an acceptable
timeframe.
DOC must quickly evaluate and determine the best alternative for replacing OMS. We
recommend that DOC fund a thorough review of its current application requirements and identify
an optimal path for a future offender application, given the time and funding constraints it faces.
This review should compare the benefits and costs of upgrading OMS, adding more resources to
complete COMIT or adopting a different solution.
Page 1-23

Executive Summary

Budget
Oklahoma ranks 41st among the 50 states in per diem spending, making it one of the nation’s least
expensive correctional systems based on spending per inmate per day. DOC’s costs are about 33
percent below the national average. Despite this cost efficiency, Oklahoma allocates a much
greater proportion of its state budget to corrections than most other states—7 percent, twice the
national average. This is attributable to the state’s very high incarceration rate. In effect,
Oklahoma makes incarcerating criminals a higher priority than other state.
Over the last eight years, department spending has grown by an average of just 2.5 percent
annually. DOC has contained its growth, despite a growing inmate population, by reducing
staffing by 7 percent over the same period.
EXHIBIT 1-16
DOC Monthly Employment In Full-Time Equivalents, 2000-2007

Actu al F T E
5,100
5,000
4,900
4,800
4,700
4,600
4,500
4,400
A p r-0 7

Ja n -0 7

O ct-0 6

Ju l-0 6

A p r-0 6

Ja n -0 6

O ct-0 5

Ju l-0 5

A p r-0 5

Ja n -0 5

O ct-0 4

Ju l-0 4

A p r-0 4

Ja n -0 4

O ct-0 3

Ju l-0 3

A p r-0 3

Ja n -0 3

O ct-0 2

Ju l-0 2

A p r-0 2

Ja n -0 2

O ct-0 1

Ju l-0 1

A p r-0 1

Ja n -0 1

O ct-0 0

Ju l-0 0

4,300

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Supplemental Funding
Over the last nine years, the legislature has established a practice of intentionally providing only
partial-year funding for the department, using a supplemental appropriation late in the fiscal year
to supply the rest. This has been characterized as an effort to control DOC spending more tightly.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this practice appear to offset any benefits.
Without a realistic, approved spending plan, the legislature cannot hold the department
accountable for complying with its budget allocations and priorities. Instead, DOC must juggle
funding in available accounts to address its needs, intentionally reducing staffing below optimal
Page 1-24

Executive Summary

levels to create budgetary flexibility. Furthermore, the timing of the supplemental appropriation,
late in the fiscal year, and the incentive to spend requested resources before the year’s close, can
at least potentially lead to spending patterns and expenditures that are not consistent with
department priorities or legislative intent.
Departmental accountability is best served by formal legislative review of department spending
allocations and priorities. The present system of ongoing supplemental funding is not effective
public policy.
The legislature and DOC should work together to develop a realistic agreement on the
department’s annual budgetary requirements. This agreement should be fully funded in the annual
appropriations process. Supplemental funding requests should be reserved for unforeseen
emergencies or important developments not specifically addressed during consideration of the
appropriation request. To establish a firm common understanding of funding priorities, we also
recommend that the legislature modify DOC’s appropriation bill to establish specific funding
allocations for major operations and program components.
MGT estimates that DOC will require supplemental funding of $24 to $25 million for this fiscal
year. Department staffing and spending trends should be carefully monitored over the next few
months to further refine these estimates as the fiscal year progresses.

Fiscal 2009 Budget Request
DOC has requested $573 million for fiscal 2009. This request includes operating funds for 1,054
new beds to be opened next year, and a $310 million bond program to support the development of
3,818 additional prison beds. We recommend a fiscal 2009 budget level that will fully fund all
known rate and price increases; provide sufficient resources to open and operate all new beds;
and contract for new maximum-security beds at the CCA Davis facility. DOC data indicate that
funding these components of its request will require an increase of $29.7 million, or about 5.8
percent above fiscal 2008 estimated spending.

Potential Savings
Our review of the department’s budget found limited opportunities for significant additional
savings. As noted earlier, DOC is cost-efficient by virtually every objective measure of unit costs
or staffing ratios. Consistent reductions in staffing and programs over the last eight years have left
little opportunity for additional cuts that would not seriously impair current operations. Current
contract rates for prison beds are extremely low and pressure to increase capacity is likely to force
spending on contract beds up.
Furthermore, DOC has been unable to make reasonable investments in infrastructure and
equipment in recent years. There is a large pent-up demand for spending in these areas.
Organizational or program realignments may be feasible, but would achieve very minor savings.
However, recommendations made in this report could potentially have a major impact upon DOC
resource requirements. MGT estimates of potential reductions are not definitive calculations of
savings, but are instead intended to provide an approximation of the fiscal impacts associated
with the policy and operational recommendations contained in this report. Exhibit 1-17
Page 1-25

Executive Summary

summarizes the direct savings associated with the most significant recommendations contained in
this report. As noted above, given the cost-efficiency of current DOC operations, the majority of
the savings identified are attributable to population reductions driven by major policy changes.
EXHIBIT 1-17
Direct Cost Savings Recommendations: $55 Million
Recommendation
1. Remove governor from routine review
of all parole cases
2. Require a prior felony conviction for
Drug Court

(in thousands)

3. Change medical provider network
4. Eliminate CSSP reimbursement
program
5. Eliminate medical claim payment
errors
6. Eliminate Community Sentencing
Division
7. Abolish OK County Residential
District
Total Savings

$

Implementation Issues

$

(40,734.4)* Statutory/constitutional changes

$

(6,000.0) Statutory changes
DOC medical provider contract
(5,133.0) change

$
$
$
$
$

(1,350.0) Statutory changes
Administrative change in DOC
(1,135.0) claims processing
(125.0) Statutory changes
(100.0) DOC administrative action
(54,577.4)

*Cumulative 10 year savings from reduced inmate population levels. Additional savings could be achieved by averting
capital and operating expenditures for new facilities that would not be required.

Many of the recommendations contained in this report have indirect fiscal implications. In other
cases, there is no data available to project a reasonable estimate of savings. For example, while
many of our staffing recommendations would probably result in reduced overtime expenditures,
the actual extent of any savings realized is speculative at this time. However, because these
recommendations would ultimately improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the DOC,
they are summarized in Exhibit 1-18.
EXHIBIT 1-18
Indirect/Undetermined Cost Savings

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Recommendation
Develop a competitive RFP for the private development and long-term operation of a
correctional facility.
Divide future private prison contracts into separate agreements for facilities and facility
operation.
Consolidate management of private prison and halfway house contracts into a single unit
reporting to the associate director of Administrative Services.
Streamline the process for assessing liquidated damages on private contractors to ensure
that it provides a credible incentive for performance.
Cap prison sentences for Drug Court revocations at a level comparable to prison sentences
for non-drug court participants with similar criminal histories.
Page 1-26

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-18 (Continued)
Indirect/Undetermined Cost Savings

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

Recommendation
Establish a research-based delineation of the type of offender and offense most appropriate
for community sentencing or drug courts.
Redefine the target population for community sentencing programs to differentiate the
population from those targeted by drug courts, mental health courts, etc.
Expand Community Sentencing eligibility to include offenders assessed “high” on the
LSI, but that meet all other established criteria.
Develop a five-year plan that will achieve lower ratios of supervisors to line PPO
officers.
Review the fee collection process for community supervision programs.
Amend CLEET requirements to permit the creation of a special peace officer
category, with an accompanying modification of the training curriculum that is more
consistent with the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the probation and
parole officer.
Enhance current centralized statewide recruitment strategies to better assist facilities
that are not able to meet established staffing funding levels.
Mandate annual recalculation of the relief factor for each facility.
Require persons housed at community corrections units to utilize civilian health
insurance plans if available.
The department should explore full or limited utilization of 430B pharmaceutical
pricing.

16. Expand utilization review to include concurrent and retrospective hospital review of
potentially preventable days consistent with recommendations from the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality
17. Improve the ratio of infirmary beds to inmates to improve hospital utilization and care
management of severely disabled inmates.
18. Consolidate technology expenditures under the responsibility of the Information
Technology Unit.
19. Rescind the Board of Corrections statutory authority.

Unfunded Needs
Over the course of our review, we have identified several areas that require additional funding to
assure effective operation of the department. Major recommendations that require additional
resources are summarized below:

Page 1-27

Executive Summary

EXHIBIT 1-19
Additional Spending Recommendations: $25 Million
Recommendation
Contract for 660 maximum-security beds at the
CCA Davis facility
Budget 48 medical care positions
Budget 50 additional PPO's
Budget 42 additional correctional officers
Assume county jail medical expenses for state
inmates
Budget 13 mental health positions
Engineering/architectural facility master plan
IT Study
STG System Development
Total

(thousands)

Implementation
Issues

$
$
$
$

13,972.0
3,662.0
2,599.0
1,771.0

DOC contract
DOC recruitment
DOC recruitment
DOC recruitment

$
$
$
$
$
$

1,400.0
991.8
500.0
150.0
50.0
25,095.8

Statutory changes
DOC recruitment
DOC contract
DOC contract
DOC contract

Information Technology
The Department of Corrections lacks an effective system for management, planning, and
operation of its information technology (IT) resources. Management of IT functions resides in
several different divisions, hampering coordination of services. The department’s core offender
management information system is unreliable and requires significant upgrade or replacement.
Ongoing planning and work on the internal development of a replacement for this system has
been unsuccessful, leaving the department in an extremely vulnerable position.
The DOC must quickly evaluate and determine the best alternative for development of a future
offender management system to replace OMS. The agency’s current offender management
application is unsuitable to meet the needs of DOC. It not only lacks functionality and is poorly
programmed, but also must exist on fragile, antiquated hardware. The department’s efforts to
build its own application, COMIT, have yielded poor results and we have significant doubts as to
its future success. Because of these issues, the agency is at a very critical point in its ability to
effectively manage the offender population. We recommend that the agency fund a thorough
review of the current application requirements and identify the optimal path for a future offender
application, given the time and funding constraints facing the department. The review should at a
minimum, compare the benefits and costs of upgrading OMS, adding more resources to complete
COMIT, or adopting a different direction.

Organizational Structure and Governance
Only nine correctional systems in the U.S. have boards overseeing their operations. MGT found
that the Board of Corrections’ oversight of DOC offers few benefits and requires additional
administrative work on the department’s part. We recommend that the board be abolished or
limited to an advisory role.

Page 1-28

Executive Summary

We also note that DOC’s size, in terms of its budget and scope of operations, is such that it no
longer fits in terms of role or mission as a sub-agency to the Department of Public Safety. We
recommend that DOC become a cabinet-level agency with a governor-appointed director.

Report Follow-up
This report contains 141 specific recommendations for consideration by the legislature. Upon a
determination of which recommendations will be acted upon, a system for follow-up reporting on
implementation of recommendations is needed to ensure accountability with legislative intent.
The DOC should submit a bi-annual report to the legislature that identifies all actions taken
pursuant to the recommendations of this report, their impact, and any additional actions that may
be required to address the issues presented here.

Page 1-29

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Oklahoma is facing the same quandary as many jurisdictions: how to manage a growing prison
population in a safe and humane manner with a limited budget. As House Speaker Lance Cargill
stated in July 2007, “we are spending a half-billion a year on an agency; we want to make sure we
are following all the best practices nationally.”1
There is ongoing debate, in Oklahoma as elsewhere, on how to protect the public and to
appropriately punish those who refuse to comply with the laws of society. In Oklahoma, as in
most other jurisdictions, the growth of the corrections system has had a profound effect on the
state’s fiscal resources. The cost of the Oklahoma corrections system has tripled over the last 17
years, and its prison population and incarceration rate are among the highest in the country.
This growth has resulted in an ever more urgent demand for resources, and in particular for more
prison beds. Justin Jones, director of the Oklahoma Department of Correction (DOC), has put
forth proposals that would expand the agency’s existing capacity by more than 3,800 beds.
And DOC’s capacity woes have engendered problems in other areas of the criminal justice
system. Prison-bound offenders are backed up in jails throughout Oklahoma, creating
overcrowding at the local level and restricting the sentencing options available to the judiciary.
Overcrowding also has affected the state’s probation services. The performance of the Parole
Board has been questioned, and the mental health systems are finding it increasingly difficult to
provide quality programs and services for the inmates who are mentally ill.
While some favor an expansion of prison facilities, others have called for additional spending on
prevention and treatment programs, to slow the growth of the population and the need for more
beds. For example, Senator Richard Lerblanc has supported expanded drug and mental health
courts, revisions to mandatory minimum sentencing laws and other approaches to stem the
growth of the system.2
To clarify some of the issues facing the state, on July 16, 2007, the Oklahoma Legislative Service
Bureau contracted with MGT of America, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive performance review
of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and related criminal justice functions. The scope this
performance review, as outlined in the contract is as follows:
MGT of America will complete a comprehensive performance review of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. MGT will conduct a review of the
department’s operations with a primary focus on improving efficiency, reducing
costs, and planning for the growth of the system’s inmate population in a manner
consistent with the public’s safety.

1
2

The Oklahoman, July 31, 2007. Audit to Settle Prisons Funding Dispute. Jennifer Mock.
Muskogee Daily Phoenix, November 12, 2006. Work for Fewer Prisons.

Page 2-1

Introduction

In announcing this contract, several members of the legislative leadership expressed their
expectations for the study. These comments include the following:
I’m optimistic this will help us stop a harmful cycle of band-aid supplemental
spending on prisons. We need the best outside expertise, so that we can look at
cost-effective ways of improving DOC operations and better managing future
prison populations. We need to find better ways to manage the hundreds of
millions of dollars spent on the state’s prison system every year. —Rep. Rex
Duncan, R-Sand Springs, chair of the House Public Safety and Judiciary
Committee
This is not a financial audit. It’s a performance audit that will provide important
information about the day-to-day operations of our corrections system. It will tell
us if our staffing is adequate, if our current organizational structure is working and
it will tell us if there are inefficiencies that we need to address.
—Senator Kenneth Corn, D-Poteau, co-chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Public Safety
One of state government’s top priorities is to protect the safety of the public, and
DOC is on the front line of this effort. This performance audit is different from a
financial audit because it will examine policies, organization, and performance—
and then make expert recommendations about what is being done well and what
can be improved. —Sen. Mike Johnson, R-Kingfisher, co-chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee.3
The agreement specified that this review was to be completed as quickly as possible, to permit the
legislature to use the information obtained from the review in its upcoming deliberations on the
department’s 2009 budget request. As result, MGT agreed that the preliminary findings of the
review would be reported to the legislature by the end of October 2007 and that the final report
would be submitted by December 31, 2007.
To ensure the performance review was comprehensive in scope, MGT and the state of Oklahoma
agreed that the following primary tasks would be included in the assessment:
Task 1.0:
Task 2.0:
Task 3.0:
Task 4.0:
Task 5.0:
Task 6.0:
Task 7.0:
Task 8.0:
Task 9.0:

3

Initiate Project and Collect Relevant Data
Develop Preliminary Profile of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Solicit Staff and Stakeholder Input in the DOC Analysis
Conduct Diagnostic Review of DOC Management and Administrative
Functions, Organizational Structures, and Operations
Tailor the MGT Study Guidelines for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Review DOC Administration
Review Institution Security and Operations
Review DOC Community Supervision Programs
Review DOC Population Management

Oklahoma State Legislature, Oklahoma State Capital, Press Release, July 11, 2007.

Page 2-2

Introduction

To complete these tasks and ensure that the performance review was comprehensive and
thorough, the MGT project team completed an unprecedented number of site visits of the
department’s facilities and operations. In addition, the review team conducted face-to-face
interviews with more than 500 individuals including departmental employees, administrators,
supervisors, sheriffs, judges, district attorneys, public defenders, representatives of professional
organizations, and interest groups and interested citizens.
During the course of the review, MGT conducted regular briefings for members and staff of the
legislature to advise them of the project’s progress; discuss any impediments or problems
encountered in the course of completing the performance review; to obtain feedback and direction
from the members on the direction and scope of the project; and to summarize preliminary
observations and findings.
In addition, these briefings helped to refine a list of core issues that the project team has identified
as being most critical in terms of affecting DOC’s overall performance, efficiency and costs. As
the review proceeded, the following list of core issues emerged and was agreed to by the
members. These core issues became the primary focus of the review and were used to frame the
issues presented in this report. These core issues are as follows:








Population & Capacity
– Analysis of the population projections
– Impact on existing capacity and need to expand beds
– Departments expansion plans
– Public vs. private
Capacity Management
– Classification
– Reception processes and beds
– Use of jails
– Community centers and halfway house capacity
Community Programs
– Drug court
– Community sentencing
– Supervision strategy
– Parole processes and decision-making
Institution Operations
– Security
– Gang management and violence
– Staffing
– Infrastructure
– Programs
– Medical and mental health
– Industries and Agri-Services

Page 2-3

Introduction



Administration and Support Functions
– Budget
– Contract monitoring and management
– Information technology
– Internal controls and investigations
– Organization and governance

This report summarizes the observations, findings and recommendations MGT developed during
the course of its performance review. They are directly related to the core issues and the project’s
stated objectives to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs, while assessing and planning
for the growth of the offender population.

Page 2-4

3.0 POPULATION & CAPACITY

3.0 POPULATION & CAPACITY
Background
The Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center (CJRC), a division of the Oklahoma Legislative
Services Bureau, calculates population projections for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
CJRC provides research and analysis for the Oklahoma Legislature, state criminal justice
agencies and other state policymakers.
CJRC uses a computer model, Prophet, to analyze and predict the flow of prisoners, probationers
and parolees through the prison system. In all, Prophet has served the state well since it was built
and installed by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency in 1997. The model was
designed to allow its users to assess the impact of sentencing guidelines on the state prison
system. Since then, the model has been altered annually to reflect changing conditions in the
corrections system. These changes have included have included the creation of the “85%” timeserved groups and limitations on goodtime and parole board eligibility. In addition, assumptions
regarding new admissions to prison, parole and community supervision violator returns and
parole grant rates are adjusted each year.
William Chown, consultant to CJRC, is solely responsible for producing Prophet projections. He
has considerable experience and skill with the software and was formerly employed by DOC in
its research unit. As will be noted below, the only issue of concern with this arrangement is that
CJRC and the state are completely dependent upon the skills and experience of a single private
contractor.

Projection Accuracy
Prophet’s accuracy is tracked after each forecast is issued. The results of the past four years of
forecasts are presented in Exhibit 3-1, which compares the actual population with the projection
issued by CJRC. As the exhibit indicates, recent estimates have been fairly accurate with the
exception of the 2004 projection.

Page 3-1

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-1
Oklahoma DOC Projections vs. Actual Population
26,500
26,000

Projection
2004
2005
2006
2007

25,500
25,000

Accuracy
-3.20%
-0.04%
+0.38%
+1.18%

Tracking Period
Jan. '04-Aug. '07
Jan. '04-Aug. '07
Jan. '05-Aug. '07
Jan. '06-Aug. '07

Total Pop.

24,500
24,000
23,500
23,000
22,500
22,000
2004 Projections

2005 Projections

2006 Projections

2007 Projections

Actual

21,500
21,000
04 r-04 -04 l-04 -04 -04 -05 r-05 -05 l-05 -05 -05 -06 r-06 -06 l-06 -06 -06 -07 r-07 -07 l-07
na
ay Ju Sep
ay
ov Jan Ma
Ju Sep Nov Jan Ma May Ju Sep Nov Jan Ma May
Ju
Ja
M
N
M
M

Month-Year

Source: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center and the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Maintaining this accuracy, however, is becoming more difficult. Three key factors make it
difficult to accurately project DOC’s prison population:


instability in parole board and governor review practices and parole grant
rates;



the inability of DOC or CJRC to accurately count the backup jail population;
and



uncertainties regarding the effects of community sentencing and drug courts
on prison admissions.

Each of these elements makes it increasingly difficult to estimate the long-term growth of the
DOC population accurately.
Effective parole grant rates are defined as the percent of those inmates eligible for parole who are
actually released. Since 1991, these rates, including the governor’s review of all parole board
recommendations, have ranged from 7.5 percent to nearly 41 percent (Exhibit 3-2). Recent
effective grant rates of from 18 to 19 percent are quite low compared to other jurisdictions.
Page 3-2

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-2
Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board Effective Grant Rate

50%

Effective Grant Rate = percentage of inmates who
were eligible for parole/commutation who were released
from prison.

Percent of Eligible Inmates Released

40.8%

40%

The 18.9% rate of 2006 represents a 39% drop since
2003 and 54% drop since 1991.

37.7%
33.9%

31.2%

30.9%

30%

27.6%
25.2% 25.3%
21.7%

21.6%
18.2% 18.9%

20%
14.8%
13.0%

10%

8.0% 7.5%

0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Calendar Year

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center and the Pardon and Parole Board.

The jail backup population—that is, state prisoners in jail and awaiting transfer to DOC—can top
1,300 inmates on any day. DOC does not learn about these prisoners, the nature of their offenses
or the lengths of their sentences in a timely manner. Since the demographics and criminal history
of these offenders are unknown, they cannot be factored into the forecast model even though they
are legally DOC’s responsibility.
Finally, Oklahoma policymakers have expected community sentencing and drug court reforms to
have a significant impact on prison admissions. As shown elsewhere in this report, and
particularly in the drug court evaluation section, the results of these prison diversion programs
have been mixed at best.
An additional concern is the fact that the current forecast assumes no net increase in the numbers
of persons being sentenced to prison and in admissions of probation and parole violators. This
assumption is based on recent admissions patterns. In fiscal 2007, however, DOC did experience
an increase in admissions. If this trend continues, and the model assumptions are not changed, the
prison population may run well above CJRC’s forecast for the next few years.

Page 3-3

Population & Capacity

It should be noted that CJRC does expect the prison population to continue increasing over the
next ten years, even though the model assumes no increase in admissions from the courts. Instead,
this projected growth reflects the long-term effects of the “85%” sentencing laws, which have
created a stacking effect (Exhibit 3-3). This phenomenon occurs when offenders in a category
continue to be admitted while releases do not match the admission rate for the offender group,
thus resulting in these offenders stacking up in the population. If admissions continue to increase,
however, actual growth may exceed the projection.
EXHIBIT 3-3
Oklahoma Prison Population
Actual and Projected Lifers and Inmates Serving 85%
Oklahoma Prison Population
Actual and Projected Lifers and Inmates Serving 85%

Number of Inmates at Year-End

12,000
9,929

10,000

9,221
8,356

8,000

2,984

2,938

7,421

2,846
2,747
2,670

6,387

2,591

5,684

6,000

2,512
2,432

4,602

2,363
1,909
1,923

4,000

1,932

386
317

255

2,000

4,483

4,024

3,389

2,882

2,415

6,945

6,698

6,375

6,039

5,686

5,347

4,909

0

Ju

ne

20

05
Ju

ne

20

06
Ju

ne

20

07
Ju

ne

Actual_85%_Non_Life

20

08
Ju

ne

20

09
Ju

ne

20

10

Actual_85%_Life

20

11

ne
ne
Ju
Ju
Fiscal Year

20

12
Ju

Actual_Other_Life

ne

20

13
Ju

ne

20

14
Ju

Projected_85%

ne

20

15
Ju

ne

20

16

Projected_Life

Source: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Despite these concerns, there are sound reasons to assume that there will be no significant
increases in prison admissions over the next decade. The so-called “at-risk” population (males
aged 18 to 35) is not expected to increase over the next decade (see Exhibit 3-4).

Page 3-4

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-4
Projected Resident and “At-Risk” Population
2007-2025
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Avg. Annual % Change

Resident Population
3,549,795
3,563,865
3,577,766
3,591,516
3,605,313
3,619,273
3,633,287
3,647,370
3,661,694
3,676,116
3,690,699
3,705,437
3,720,396
3,735,690
3,751,443
3,767,829
3,784,867
3,802,592
3,820,994
0.41%

Males Ages 18-35
441,635
442,589
444,216
445,727
445,626
445,224
444,395
443,514
442,266
440,008
437,955
436,784
436,126
436,753
438,574
440,619
443,459
446,489
449,271
0.10%

Source: www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html.

Furthermore, Oklahoma crime rates have declined over the past decade (as they have in all states)
and the volume of arrests has remained flat (see Exhibit 3-5).

Page 3-5

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-5
Oklahoma Crime Index and Adult Arrests
1996-2006
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Total Crime
Index
5,652.9
5,494.6
5,003.9
4,683.8
4,558.6
4,594.4
4,748.7
4,818.7
4,742.6
4,556.3
4,101.4

Violent
Crime Index
597.1
559.5
539.4
508.2
497.8
510.9
504.0
506.4
500.5
509.2
497.2

Property
Crime Index
5,055.8
4,935.1
4,464.5
4,175.6
4,060.8
4,083.5
4,244.7
4,312.3
4,242.1
4,047.1
3,604.2

Adult
Arrests
122,815
126,578
138,779
140,064
140,088
140,296
142,707
141,817
141,810
141,776
138,914

Source: www.fbi.gov.

The other significant variable, as already noted, is the parole grant rate; again, current forecasts
are based on relatively low grant rates (Exhibit 3-6). While these rates have varied considerably
in recent years, and recently have been quite low, the board recently adopted a new set of
guidelines that may increase grant recommendations. If they do, and the governor’s review of
these recommendations does not contradict them, the average length of stay and associated prison
populations may decline.
EXHIBIT 3-6
Population Projection Admission Assumptions
Year
2006
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

New Court
Commitments
6,212
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178
6,178

Probation
Revocations
2,090
2,084
2,142
2,110
2,173
2,000
2,068
1,998
2,071
2,107
2,090
2,162

Parole
Revocations
235
264
285
289
237
263
280
283
265
301
287
257

Total
8,537
8,526
8,605
8,577
8,588
8,441
8,526
8,459
8,514
8,586
8,555
8,597

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Page 3-6

Population & Capacity

To date the current forecast has been steadily underestimating the actual prison population. As of
November, the forecast was over 600 inmates above the actual prisoner population. The reason(s)
for this underestimate, which is not large, is not known. But the factors that would produce an
underestimate would be lower prison admissions, a higher parole grant rate that would lower the
length of stay, or an increase in the jail backlog. Of the three, it would appear that the backlog
cases are the most direct reason for the over-projection. Typically the backlog is approximately
1,000 but it has increased to 1,300 in the past few months. If the forecast were adjusted to account
for this local jail backlog, the error level would be reduced by approximately 50 percent.
In all, MGT recommends that the current DOC projection not be adjusted at this time. Below, we
recommend that the projections be updated every six months; CJRC should issue a new forecast
before December 31, 2007 to reflect more current admission trends, jail backlogs and recent
release and parole board trends. An updated projection may show a slightly lower 10-year
forecast.
The current long-term projection indicates that the DOC prisoner population will rise from about
25,000 today to nearly 29,000 by fiscal 2016. Again, virtually all of this growth is due to longer
periods of imprisonment caused by the “85%” sentencing laws and relatively low parole grant
rates.

Impact of Parole Approval Rates
To illustrate the effect of parole decision-making on population projections, MGT worked with
CJRC staff to develop two simulations in which the board’s approval rate is increased to 30
percent and 40 percent, respectively, with the additional assumption that these rates would be the
final effective parole rate.
These rates are quite reasonable for a number of reasons. First, the board’s hearing investigators,
who make recommendations to the board on each case, are recommending parole in about 40
percent of the cases reviewed each month. Furthermore, the board itself is recommending parole
in about 30 percent of the cases.
If the grant rate were to be increased either to 30 percent or 40 percent, the prison population
would begin to decline, thus eliminating the need for additional bed capacity (Exhibit 3-7).

Page 3-7

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-7
The Impact of Parole Grant Rates On the Total Prison Population
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Current Projection:
18% Grant Rate
24,561
25,416
26,316
27,035
27,459
27,831
28,065
28,235
28,537
28,760
28,872

30%Grant Rate

40% Grant Rate

24,591
25,375
25,743
24,896
24,222
24,244
24,396
24,356
24,584
24,777
24,954

24,545
25,272
25,506
23,994
23,320
23,139
23,168
23,350
23,434
23,664
23,937

Source: MGT of America and Criminal Justice Resource Center.

An increase in the grant rate would produce an associated increase in the parole population.
Exhibit 3-8 estimates the effects on parole admissions of the 30 percent and 40 percent scenarios.
Roughly speaking, the higher grant rates would increase parole admissions by about 100 percent
and 140 percent respectively. The parole population would increase by the same shares unless
there was a decline in the average period of parole supervision.
EXHIBIT 3-8
Changes in Parole Releases Under Current and Alternative Parole Grant Rates
FY
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Current
1,088
1,083
1,150
1,278
1,258
1,359
1,370
1,340
1,365

30% Grant Rate
1,936
3,525
3,376
3,067
2,994
2,940
2,855
2,819
2,788

40% Grant Rate
2,135
4,548
4,157
3,719
3,604
3,382
3,319
3,311
3,297

Source: MGT of America and Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Finally, it should be noted that the parole hearing process has several procedural aspects that can
either delay the release of those who have been granted parole, or require certain prisoners to be
paroled only as they near the end of their sentences. Clearly, delays can occur in the governor’s
review process, despite the 30-day statutory time limit. A large share of prisoners who are granted
parole must wait for the governor’s review to be completed, which may delay their actual release
for several months.
Page 3-8

Population & Capacity

The other procedural issue concerns the board’s policy of not docketing violent offenders who are
within 90 days of discharge. These inmates may have very short sentences (with parole and
release dates very close to one another) or may have been previously rejected for parole and now
are nearing the end of their sentences. In either case, it may be advisable to place both types of
individuals on some form of parole supervision, particularly if they pose a high risk to public
safety, rather than to defer the case for discharge.

Role of the Criminal Justice Resource Center
CJRC provides a valuable service to the state legislature and executive branch by providing
generally accurate forecasts of correctional populations; reporting on the likely effects of
proposed legislation; and monitoring trends in reported crimes, arrests and sentencing.
Throughout this report, MGT makes specific recommendations concerning various problems with
CJRC projections. We believe that our proposals will improve CJRC’s forecasting and fiscal
assessments.
We also strongly recommend that CJRC address current deficiencies in its data collection and
analysis of reported crime, arrests and sentencing trends. As noted below, data entry for this
information is backlogged and, in some cases, is two to three years behind. Improvements in this
area would directly enhance CJRC’s forecasting capabilities and the accuracy of its analyses.
CJRC’s credibility depends directly upon the degree to which it conducts and presents its
analyses in an objective and professional manner. We believe it is critical that CJRC’s executive
director implement these improvements and strive to ensure that CJRC operates—and is
viewed—as a non-partisan source of reliable information.

Summary of Recommendations
Although the Prophet model has proven to be an accurate and useful planning tool, MGT makes
several recommendations that could further enhance CJRC’s ability to model the correctional
population. These recommendations fall into two categories: systemic recommendations, which
refer to the policies and procedures used in issuing forecasts, and technical recommendations,
which pertain to the modeling techniques used.
Recommendation 3-1. Oklahoma should adopt a jurisdiction-based projection that
includes the DOC population in local jails. Current and past projections have suffered
from an inability to assess the number of sentenced state prisoners being housed in local
jails while awaiting transfer to state prison. CJRC’s projections should reflect the number
of persons sentenced to the DOC regardless of their location. To meet this goal, the DOC
database must be modified to capture persons sentenced to DOC but held in jails.
Recommendation 3-2. Enhance CJRC forecasting capabilities and resources. Prophet
is a complex mathematical tool that combines a large amount of historical data with a set
of assumptions to produce an estimate of future population levels. The sheer amount of
data that must be entered into model creates a significant potential for data entry errors
and misinterpretations that can skew the model and introduce bias. MGT’s evaluation of
the model uncovered some errors of these types.
Page 3-9

Population & Capacity

One option would be to annually retain an independent organization to assist in the
review of the data analysis and model construction and issue the official forecast. In
addition, at least two CJRC staff members should be trained in the Prophet software and
its use. MGT found some errors and inconsistencies in CJRC staff knowledge of the
software, as well as in their understanding of the elements of the model itself. A process
that requires an annual review of the simulation protocol and associated training by the
independent consultant would help ensure that CJRC staff have a complete understanding
of the model. This should help prevent any future data entry errors.
Recommendation 3-3. Create and develop a new admissions assumption using more
sophisticated statistical methods that take demographic, crime, arrest and court
sentencing trends into account. Although the simulation model is primarily based on
historical data from the most recent year, it does require the user to enter projected new
court admissions over the forecasted period. The development of this prediction is
independent of the simulation model, but it obviously has very serious implications for
the resulting forecast; assuming no growth in the number of offenders entering prison
will produce a very different forecast than an assumption of 5 percent annual growth.
Many sophisticated statistical methods are available to produce admissions assumptions.
Using these methods and incorporating more variables would help ensure that the new
admissions assumption is accurate and reasonable.
Recommendation 3-4. Form an assumptions consensus committee to review the key
assumptions (new admissions, violator return rates and parole grant rates) used in the
baseline projection and fiscal impact statements. Again, the assumptions and data built
into the simulation model have a profound effect on the resulting forecast. Unreasonable
data and assumptions, whether intentional or unintentional, can seriously bias the
simulation model and jeopardize the legitimacy of the forecast. A consensus committee
would serve as a check and balance over the assumptions and data used, and provide
individual expertise in the creation of these assumptions. The committee should include
representatives of the legislature, executive branch, fiscal staff, courts, parole board and
DOC.
Recommendation 3-5. Expand the current projection report to provide more
information on its assumptions and analysis. CJRC’s current report should be expanded
to provide information on the reasons for forecasted growth, and offer comparisons of
key assumptions and data points with the previous year’s. More detailed information on
these and other changes would help policymakers better understand the dynamics of the
estimates and the reasons for any inaccuracies in earlier forecasts.
Recommendation 3-6. Eliminate the CJRC database’s data entry backlog. MGT found
that some data from the courts, including arrests, case filings and dispositions, had been
awaiting entry since 2004. As a result, critical criminal justice data in the database is out
of date, impairing CJRC’s ability to complete a thorough analysis of criminal justice
trends in Oklahoma.

Page 3-10

Population & Capacity

Recommendation 3-7. Issue projections every six months. Current volatility within the
Oklahoma criminal justice system suggests that its population projections should
performed semi-annually. The major forecast used to plan agency resources should be
published annually, with a supplemental and shorter report issued six months later to
weigh the accuracy of the annual forecast and to update it based on any unanticipated
trends.
Recommendation 3-8. Upgrade the Prophet simulation software to the more current
Wizard Simulation model. In 2000, the software vendor responsible for Prophet for
Windows revised and upgraded it into a new product, Wizard; it has also issued three
subsequent upgrades to Wizard. Revisions and additions to the software have included
average-age forecasting and classification and have enhanced the application’s
forecasting capabilities, as well as some changes to the underlying mathematics of the
software. Acquisition of the current software should improve CJRC’s forecasting
capabilities and accuracy.
Recommendation 3-9. Track admissions and releases in addition to prison population
for accuracy on a monthly basis. An effective simulation model reports on not just the
total population but also the pertinent features of that population. This allows the model’s
users not only to determine whether the forecast is accurate, but also to determine the
reasons for inaccuracies, and to examining underlying admission and release trends.
When fully utilizing the simulation model in the production of tracking reports on
admissions and releases, the user can answer more than just the simple question of “Is the
forecast accurate?” In the event the forecast is not accurate, the model can not only the
question of “Why?”, but also questions of whether the admission and release trends are
accurate can be addressed.
Recommendation 3-10. Project the prison population by gender using separate male
and female models. The state should maintain separate male and female models so that
separate forecasts can be made for each population. At present, CJCR develops an overall
projection and then divides it in two based on the current share of females in the total
population. This procedure does not allow the forecast to reflect the unique attributes of
the female prison population which affect the forecast. These attributes include
differences in prior criminal history, history of violence, sentence length, parole rates,
etc.
Recommendation 3-11. Reduce the number of ID groups within the model to improve
its performance. The simulation model is constructed around “ID groups,” or groups of
like offenders, typically based by offense seriousness and sentence length. For the
model’s mathematical distributions to produce the most effective results, ID groups
should contain at least 50 individuals. At present, CJRC uses several ID groups that fall
below this criterion. Reducing the number of ID groups would allow for larger
populations in each.

Page 3-11

Population & Capacity

Recommendation 3-12. Alter the population model to include a “loop-back” feature
only for parole violators returning to prison; include probation violators in the new
admissions stream. A “loop-back” is a mechanism within the model that allows for the
introduction of offenders into the population outside of the new admissions assumption.
CJRC’s model provides a loop-back feature for both parole and probation violators. To
establish these loop-back features, CJCR must model both the larger population and the
parole and probation populations.
Typically, however, prison population forecasts include a loop-back for parole violators
but not for probation violators. This is because modeling the probation population is a
near-impossible task. The data needed to create a probation forecast often are unreliable
and suspect as they normally reside in local databases and the quality control of the data
is often lost due to being decentralized in numerous jurisdictions. As a result including
them in a prison model will jeopardize its accuracy.
Recommendation 3-13. Remove extraneous fields and simplify the model. The model
has a number of outdated data fields that were required for outmoded prison policies and
laws. Although these data fields do not harm the function of the model, they do make it
more cumbersome and harder to comprehend.
Recommendation 3-14. Improve the methodology used to produce legislative impact
assessments. CJRC prepares legislative impact assessments via a simple spreadsheet
with available data. MGT’s review of recently issued assessments found that many
impacts were not quantified due to a lack of data. We recommend that further research be
performed to provide, at minimum, a “best-case” and “worst-case” scenario for each
impact. Potential sources of useful information could include jail records for
misdemeanor crimes that become felonies, court records for newly created crime codes
and data from other states and jurisdictions who have implemented similar laws. Such
information should allow researchers to provide a range of potential impacts on bed space
to at least give policymakers an idea of the potential effects.
Furthermore, CJRC should produce legislative impact estimates with the simulation
model, rather than a spreadsheet. This would allow for a phase-in of impacts over time
and provide policymakers with an idea of bed space impacts and associated costs over the
next 10 to 20 years. It also would provide for a simpler transition if the legislation passes
and the effect becomes a permanent feature of the baseline model.

Page 3-12

Population & Capacity

Capacity Needs Based on Population Projections
MGT compared DOC’s proposed capacity expansion plans with the bed needs reported in
CJRC’s existing population projections. Again, these projections assume that present growth
assumptions (admission rates, parole rates, etc.) will remain stable over the next few years.
As of October 29, 2007, the department reported a total capacity of 24,845 beds, 18,108 in DOC
facilities and 6,737 in contract facilities.
If the prison population grows as projected, DOC either must either expand its present capacity to
provide 28,872 beds by fiscal 2016, or implement other program alternatives to slow the
projected growth (Exhibit 3-9). The population projections also indicate that DOC will need at
least 3,220 of these additional beds by fiscal 2012.
EXHIBIT 3-9
Current Prison Population Projections
30,000

28,760

29,000

28,872

28,537
28,065

28,235

27,831

28,000
27,459
27,035
27,000
26,316
26,000
25,416

25,000

24,000

23,000
FY 07

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

FY 16

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Exhibit 3-10 summarizes DOC’s current fiscal 2008 capacity expansion plans, as well as
capacity expansion projects included in the fiscal 2009 budget request.

Page 3-13

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-10
Department Capacity Fiscal 2009 Capacity Expansion Plan

Project
FY 08 Budget
Work Centers
Clara Waters
James Crabtree
Jihn Lilly
NE OK Corr Center
subototal
Proposed FY 09 New Facilities
Bill Johnson
Dick Conner
James Crabtree
Reformatory
Alford
Key
Harp and LARC
OSP
subtotal
Total

Total
Beds

Net
Beds

FY
Open

Secure
Beds

Total
Capacity

EOY
Capacity
Shortfall

21,152
21,152
21,152
21,267
21,417
21,767
21,767

24,476
24,576
24,870
24,985
25,135
25,485
25,485

(940)
(1,446)
(1,446)
(2,050)
(1,900)
(1,550)
(1,550)

22,375
22,675
23,053
23,353
23,690
23,717
23,998
25,042
25,042
25,042

26,093
26,393
26,771
27,071
27,408
27,435
27,716
28,760
28,760
28,760

(942)
(1,066)
(688)
(388)
(51)
(396)
(115)
695
695
695

100
294
200
150
350
1,094

100
294
115
150
350
1,009

2008
2008
2009
2009
2009

608
300
600
300
600
40
300
1,568
4,316
6,504

608
300
378
300
337
27
281
1,044
3,275
5,293

2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections Documents.

In fiscal 2008, DOC plans to bring 394 beds online at community work centers and at the
reopened Clara Waters Community Corrections Center. The remaining 700 beds funded in fiscal
2008 represent expansions at existing minimum-security units and will not be available for
operation until 2009.
The remainder of the expansion plan is included in the department’s current fiscal 2009 budget
request. These projects, which include 4,316 new beds, represent the construction of additional
housing at existing facilities. Because some of these projects will replace current, deteriorated
facilities, however, the net additional increase to the department’s capacity resulting from the
expansion plan will be 3,275 beds.
Exhibit 3-11 illustrates the impact of this expansion plan upon the department’s overall capacity,
and the degree to which these resources will meet projected prison population growth.

Page 3-14

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-11
Oklahoma DOC Capacity Plan
30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

Population
Capacity

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000
FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11

FY 12

FY 14

FY 15

FY 16

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

Based on current population projections, the department’s requested expansion plans and the
assumption that no intervening policy changes will reduce projected bed needs, DOC will have
sufficient beds up to 2016. Given the department’s current capacity deficit, these expansions
appear to be warranted and appropriate.
The expansion plan, however, does not adequately address the most immediate classification and
capacity issue facing the department at this time: a lack of adequate maximum-security beds. The
expansion plan includes the construction of 1,568 beds at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP); as
noted above, however, the expansions are being accompanied by closures of outdated and
deteriorating housing units. The net increase in maximum-security beds at the penitentiary will
total 1,044. These beds, moreover, are not expected to be available until sometime in 2012. This
is problematic, as DOC’s number of maximum-security inmates far exceeds its number of
available maximum-security beds, and this imbalance will only grow in the interim.
As noted in Chapter 6, the level of violence within DOC, combined with increasing gang
problems, require enough secure beds to safely manage inmates that require maximum
supervision. DOC does not have these beds at present and the expansion plan will not resolve this
need until 2012.

Page 3-15

Population & Capacity

DOC has attempted to address its immediate needs by including funds to contract for maximumsecurity beds at the Davis Correctional Center in its fiscal 2009 budget request. Davis, operated
by Correctional Corporation of America (CCA), presently provides medium-security beds and is
in the process of building new maximum-security housing. CCA officials said they are building
660 maximum-security beds at Davis, including a 60-bed segregation unit. These beds are
expected to be operational in July 2008, fours year ahead of the planned maximum-security bed
expansion at OSP. MGT reviewed CCA’s design and general staffing plans and found that them
consistent with accepted national standards for a maximum-security facility.
MGT attempted to obtain detailed information from CCA to assess of the cost-effectiveness of
leasing these beds to the DOC. CCA clearly prefers leasing these beds to the DOC but
acknowledged that there are other jurisdictions ready and willing to lease the beds if the DOC
declines. CCA declined to provide specific costs for the proposed unit, citing only a preliminary
estimated per diem for the beds $60 to $62.
CCA stated that the cost information we requested is proprietary and could harm any competitive
advantage they may have if made public. (A proposed template for analysis of CCA costs can be
found as an appendix to this report.) Later in this chapter, we compare the cost-effectiveness of
private vs. public development and operation of this facility.
Despite lack of information necessary to complete a detailed comparison of CCA and DOC costs
by type and function, CCA’s proposal to lease the beds to the DOC does have apparent merit. The
estimated per diem cost is comparable, if not less expensive than, that of the department’s current
maximum-security facilities. This fact, combined with the absolute need for additional capacity,
and more specifically maximum-security capacity, makes the CCA option extremely attractive.
Accepting it also will give DOC and the legislature time to fully examine and analyze the merits
of the department’s proposed expansion plans at OSP.
MGT recommends approval of a multi-year contract for this bed expansion. We also make
specific recommendations on improved contract terms and monitoring provisions later this
chapter.
The other components of the department’s fiscal 2009 expansion plan also appear to have merit
and represent a reasonable approach to address the department’s beds needs at least until 2016.
To ensure that this and future expansion plans are cost-effective and incorporate the best available
professional analysis, MGT strongly recommends that DOC commission a formal engineering
and architectural master plan for its facility and bed needs. Such a master plan would address the
type and location of proposed new capacity as well as the costs and benefits of expanding current
facilities versus building new ones. This study should be undertaken before the approval of
funding for this plan. States facing similar challenges as Oklahoma, such as Iowa, have
successfully used short-term correctional system master planning projects to ensure that
correctional capital investments meet their needs in a cost-effective manner.
Specifically, the master plan should:


survey the condition and life expectancy of the department’s existing facilities;



identify critical structural and infrastructure needs for each facility and
prioritize them;
Page 3-16

Population & Capacity



determine the feasibility and advisability of adding additional beds to selected
facilities as proposed in the department’s expansion plans;



develop a cost-benefit analysis of the current expansion plan versus the
construction of stand-alone facilities;



determine the feasibility of renovating and upgrading existing facilities as an
alternative to new construction; and



verify the need to spend in excess of $310 million in the manner proposed by
DOC.

The completion of a master plan is essential in view of the magnitude of the long-term investment
proposed by DOC. An independent architectural and engineering review of the merits of the
proposal would ensure that any investment in additional facilities is cost-efficient and effective.
As noted earlier, DOC’s capacity needs can shift suddenly and substantially depending upon
changes in criminal justice practices and policies. Such changes could include:


improvements in the completion rate of drug court participants;



reductions in the length of sentences served by drug court failures;



increased parole board approval rates;



an accelerated phase-in schedule for the proposed new beds;



using private beds that will be available in July 2008 either as a permanent
option or as interim option through 2012; or



contracting for additional private beds.

DOC should evaluate its options for the further expansion of private prison capacity.
MGT recommends that the department change the way in which it procures private prison
capacity; this will be explored in detail below. In summary, MGT suggests that DOC develop a
request for proposals (RFP) process that invites private companies to submit competitive bids for
the construction and operation of a facility dedicated for the department’s use. The state has a
number of promising options regarding the lease or purchase of privately developed correctional
facilities. Soliciting and evaluating competing proposals would allow DOC to weigh the relative
merits of these options, and gain valuable information on their relative costs and benefits.
DOC must increase capacity, and soon. Positive developments derived the drug court and any
changes in parole rates and community sentencing will be long-term and will not change the
course of population growth immediately. But DOC faces significant capacity shortfalls within
four years, and many of its facilities are deteriorating. A workable capacity expansion plan is
essential to the viability of the state’s correctional system.

Page 3-17

Population & Capacity

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 3-15. The State of Oklahoma should immediately commission an
independent engineering/architectural firm to produce a master plan that considers
DOC’s proposed expansion plans and develops alternatives as found appropriate.
Recommendation 3-16. DOC should enter into formal negotiations with CCA for
additional maximum-security beds that will become available in July 2008.
Recommendation 3-17. DOC should develop a competitive RFP for the private
development and long-term operation of a correctional facility.
Recommendation 3-18. DOC should develop a long-term capacity plan that
incorporates the results of the master plan and, if feasible, additional private prison
facilities. The plan should include revised population projections with updated
assumptions that reflect additional or modified policies and programs. Upon completion,
the plan should be submitted for review by key state policymakers in the executive and
legislative branches.

Page 3-18

Population & Capacity

Use of Private Correctional Facilities
While many studies of private prisons focus on the cost of private prison operations, this review
also examines private facility operational quality and reliability, as well as state contract
monitoring practices and project delivery issues, to assess of the overall utility of additional
prison privatization in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma was one of the first states to use private prisons. DOC began contracting for private
prison beds in Texas in 1995, and established contracts with private facilities in Oklahoma in
1997. At the end of fiscal 2001, Oklahoma private prisons housed more than 6,000 inmates, or
nearly 30 percent of the state’s prison population, at a cost of over $100 million annually.
Oklahoma’s present reliance upon private prisons is second only to New Mexico among peer
correctional systems (Exhibit 3-12). Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas and Kansas do not use private
prisons at all.
EXHIBIT 3-12
Share of Inmates in Private Facilities, 2007

Texas

10.4%

Colorado

18.8%

Oklahoma

23.8%

New Mexico

43.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Source: American Corrections Association and MGT of America.

Oklahoma’s use of private prisons has dropped by 26 percent since fiscal 2002, however
(Exhibit 3-13). Key factors behind this shift include the state’s purchase of the former Dominion
facility; the termination of DOC’s agreement with CCA for the Diamondback facility; the end of
the department’s agreement with Cornell for the use of its facilities; and the development of
additional contract bedspace in the halfway house and contract county jail programs. As a result
Page 3-19

Population & Capacity

of these actions, and ongoing growth of the prison population, the percentage of the state’s
offenders housed in private prisons has dropped from a high of 27 percent in fiscal 2001 to a low
of 19 percent by the end of fiscal 2007.
EXHIBIT 3-13
Private Prison Population
6,500
6,092
6,000

5,925

5,907

5,500
5,006
5,000
4,578

4,618

4,632

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

4,569

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The termination of the Cornell contract was prompted by DOC’s refusal to substantially raise the
per diem contract rates it paid its vendor. During the 10-year period ending in 2006, Oklahoma’s
private prison contractors received just two per diem rate increases totaling 7 percent. By
contrast, the per diem rate for state-operated facilities, while initially much lower than the private
per diem, rose substantially from fiscal 1996 to 2002 (Exhibit 3-14). While government facility
per diem rates have remained unchanged over the last five years, they still exceeded private
prison rates by 8 percent as of fiscal 2006.

Page 3-20

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-14
Private vs. State Prison Per Diems
$55.00

$50.00

$45.00
Private Prison Per Diem
State Prison Per Diem
$40.00

$35.00

$30.00
FY 96

FY 97

FY 98

FY 99

FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

While Oklahoma has realized savings by refusing to raise private prison contract rates, it faces
increasingly strong pressure to reverse its position. Oklahoma appears to be paying much less
than current existing market rates for its private beds. By comparison, New Mexico and Florida
pay average per diem rates of $55.26 and $54.13 for their contract facilities, compared to the
$47.14 average per diem DOC paid in fiscal 2006. Given increasing demand for private prison
beds in other states, including California, market price pressures can be expected to push vendor
rates further upward. If the state does not respond to this market, it faces the danger of losing its
remaining contract beds, as happened with the Cornell contract.
Private operators face increasing labor and medical costs to assure acceptable program quality.
Cost increases passed along to the department in the form of higher per diem rates are virtually
certain.

Cost Analysis
As described in the budget chapter of this report, DOC operates very efficiently, both in its
private facilities and its state-operated institutions. Examining per diem costs by type of facility,
however, indicates that the private prisons are much more cost-efficient (Exhibit 3-15). In fiscal
2006, DOC’s private prisons were its most inexpensive secure facilities, at a per-diem cost of
$47.14 versus $51.94 for the most directly comparable state-managed, medium-security
institutions.
Page 3-21

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-15
Per Diem Cost by Type of Facility, Fiscal 2006
$70.00

$60.07
$60.00
$51.94
$48.82

$50.00

$47.14

$39.23

$40.00

$36.02

$35.07

$30.00

$27.00

$20.00

$10.00

$State Maximum

State Medium

CCC's

Private
Institutions

Halfway Houses

Work Centers

County Jails

County Jail
Backup

Source: MGT of America.

It should be noted, however, that DOC’s state-managed facilities are not readily comparable to
the state’s private prisons for a number of reasons, including inmate population characteristics,
facility age, size, physical plant design and layout. Department institutions tend to be antiquated
or poorly designed (in some cases converted from obsolete human services institutions), and
require higher staffing levels to compensate for severe security deficiencies inherent in their
physical plant. The state’s private facilities are relatively new institutions designed to facilitate
the efficient use of staff resources and enhance security.
To address this problem, MGT’s analysis examines the cost-efficiency of new, privately operated
facilities versus state operation of the same new facilities. This approach represents a modified
version of the methodology developed by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
as described in OMB Circular A-76. It compares the expected cost of contractor-provided
services with the expected cost of comparable government-provided services. In other words, it
weighs whether it is cheaper to “make” or “buy” the service in question.
To answer this question, MGT’s analysis compares two distinct cost measures:


expenditures that the state expects to avoid through privatization (such as staff
compensation or food costs); and



payments the state expects to make to satisfy its contractual obligations.

Page 3-22

Population & Capacity

The resulting analysis should demonstrate the overall level of expenditures avoided or incurred
due to prison privatization. The primary advantage of this approach is that it does not require
detailed contractor cost data; the only contractor information required is the overall per diem rate
charged.
To test the relative cost-effectiveness of private and public-managed prisons in Oklahoma, we
applied the modified OMB methodology to the department’s request for funding for new
maximum-security beds. Note that this analysis does not assess the advisability of contracting for
the Davis beds; we address that issue in the chapter on the department’s capacity plan. We simply
use the Davis beds here as the basis for a hypothetical comparison of private versus public
operation of the same facility.
The fiscal 2009 budget request asks for just under $14 million to fund 660 new maximumsecurity beds at CCA’s Davis Correctional Center next year. The budget assumes a per diem rate
of $58; CCA executives, however, informally indicated that their required per diem for these new
beds could be between $60 and $62 per day. Thus, we assume a $58 to $62 per diem rate range.
Identifying the true costs to the state for this proposed contract, however, also requires the
consideration of indirect costs associated with contract. These indirect costs include:


direct administrative costs attributable to DOC’s private prison contracting
unit.



medical costs for offenders housed in contract facilities that are the
responsibility of the department (the department is responsible for
cumulative medical claims in excess of $70,000 for each offender housed in
private prisons); and



overall departmental administrative costs, prorated by the number of
offenders housed in private prisons.

Based on actual fiscal 2006 expenditure data, costs in these categories totaled $4.17 per offender
housed in private prisons. Applying an inflation rate derived from the Consumer Price Index for
southern states in fiscal 2007 increases these costs by 2 percent. Applying the same 2 percent
inflation assumption to fiscal 2008 results in a projected fiscal 2009 indirect cost allocation of
$4.34 per inmate in private prisons. Adding this to the projected contract rates for the Davis
expansion results in an overall per diem range of $62.34 to $66.34 for private maximum-security
beds, and an overall cost of $15-$16 million (Exhibit 3-16).

Page 3-23

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-16
Private Prison Cost and Per Diem for a New 660-Bed Maximum-Security Unit
Proposed Davis
Maximum Security
Unit
DOC Fiscal 2009
Rate Assumption
CCA Projected Per
Diem

Fiscal 2009
Private Prison
Indirect Costs

Fiscal
2009
Projected
Per Diem

Projected
Annual
Cost
($000)

Beds

Fiscal 2009
Estimated
Contract Rate

660

$58.00

$4.34

$62.34

$15,016.9

660

$62.00

$4.34

$66.34

$15,980.5

Source: MGT of America.

To compare the private versus public cost of operating these 660 maximum-security beds, we
must establish a per diem cost for public management of the unit. MGT based its estimate on data
developed by DOC on for its fiscal 2008 budget request. The key assumptions in this estimate
address staffing, other operating costs and debt service that DOC would incur in operating the
unit.

Staffing
DOC estimates that a 1,044-bed net expansion of maximum-security beds at Oklahoma State
Penitentiary would require 269 staff. This equates to 0.26 staff per maximum-security bed.
Applying this ratio to the 660 beds under development at Davis produces a staffing requirement
of 170 FTEs. Based on fiscal 2006 expenditure data, we project the annual cost of this staffing at
$7.9 million (Exhibit 3-17).
EXHIBIT 3-17
DOC Staffing Costs: New 660 Bed Maximum-Security Unit
DOC maximum-security staff per bed
# of new maximum security beds
DOC projected maximum-security staffing
Fiscal 2006 average salary
Salary cost
Longevity (accrual) bonus
Benefits
Projected staffing costs

$
$
$
$
$

0.26
660
170.1
31,150.80
5,297,426.00
21,189.71
2,552,930.35
7,871,546.33

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

Page 3-24

Population & Capacity

Other Operating Expenses
The department identified the cost for other operating expenditures (travel, food, fuel, equipment,
medical supplies, etc.) for a new facility as $3,402.67 per bed, based on fiscal 2006 expenditures.
Applying this average cost to a 660-bed maximum-security unit results in estimated annual
expenditures of $2,245,762.20.

Debt Service
DOC’s fiscal 2008 request for funding for a new maximum-security institution in assumed
construction costs of $82,576.53 per bed. For the purposes of our analysis, this assumption results
in estimated construction costs of $54,500,509.80 for 660 maximum-security beds. Using the
department’s assumptions for interest rates on a 25-year bond issue to cover this cost produces
annual debt service payments of $3,702,099.69.

Indirect Costs
The department’s calculation of indirect costs for maximum-security facilities includes
expenditures for the prorated cost of DOC central administration. Based on actual fiscal 22006
expenditure data, these costs would total $1,315,314 annually for a 660-bed unit.

Inflation
Applying an inflation rate derived from the Consumer Price Index for southern states in fiscal
2007 increases the fiscal 2006 costs described above by 2 percent. Applying the same 2 percent
inflation assumption in fiscal 2008 produces projected fiscal 2009 per diem costs of $65.36. This
rate is directly comparable to the range of fiscal 2009 per diems for the proposed new Davis units
calculated earlier. Exhibit 3-18 summarizes the calculation of per diem for department operation
of a 660-bed maximum-security unit.
EXHIBIT 3-18
DOC Operating Cost and Per Diem,
New 660-Bed Maximum Security Unit
Projected staffing costs
Other operating expenses
Annual debt service
Annual indirect cost
Total cost
Fiscal 2007 CPI @ 2 percent
Fiscal 2008 CPI @ 2 percent

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,871,546
2,245,762
3,702,100
1,315,314
15,134,722
15,437,417
15,746,165

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

DOC cost & per diem

$

15,746,165

$ 65.36

32.68
9.32
15.37
5.46
62.83
64.08
65.36

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

Page 3-25

Population & Capacity

Note that the projected operating costs of both private and public operation of a 660-bed
maximum-security unit are quite similar. The lowest-cost alternative was private operation at the
contract rate assumed in the DOC’s fiscal 2009 budget request. This $58 private per diem
corresponds to a total per diem cost of $62.34 after factoring in associated indirect costs. Based
on actual fiscal 2006 expenditure data, the projected per diem for government operation of the
same 660-bed maximum-security unit would total $65.36, about 4.8 percent above the assumed
private cost.
The key factor in the comparison, however, is the private contractor rate used. The informal CCA
rate quote of $62 per day results in a total per diem cost 1.5 percent above the projected cost of
DOC operation. Our analysis shows that the “break-even” point—the rate at which the cost of
private operation of the proposed 660-bed unit equals DOC’s cost—is $61.03. Contract rates
above this level, then, are not cost-effective for the state (Exhibit 3-19).
EXHIBIT 3-19
Operating Per Diem
Private vs. Public Operations for a New 660-Bed Maximum-Security Unit
Operating Per Diems for a 660-Bed Maximum-Security Unit
Direct Costs/
Indirect
Contract Rate
Costs
Total Per Diem
Private Operation: DOC Fiscal 2009
Budget Assumption
$58.00
$4.34
$62.34
Private Operation: CCA Estimated
Rate
$62.00
$4.34
$66.34
Government/DOC Operation
$59.68
$5.68
$65.36
Private Operation Break-Even
Point

$ 61.03

$4.34

$65.36

Source: MGT of America.

Privatization: Other Factors
Cost is only one of many factors that require evaluation to thoroughly assess privatization as a
strategy for additional system capacity. The relatively narrow difference between the costs of
private versus public development and operation identified in our analysis underscores the fact
that an informed decision on future privatization requires consideration of all key factors. The
following section summarizes some of these factors.

Timing
Given DOC’s immediate need for additional capacity, the private sector’s ability to develop and
open new facilities quickly is a critical factor arguing for additional privatization.

Page 3-26

Population & Capacity

As pointed out in the capacity chapter, current and projected levels of prison system crowding
make the availability of 660 new beds at CCA’s Davis facility extremely attractive. DOC literally
has no other option that would provide this number of maximum-security prison beds in fiscal
2009. As a result, we strongly recommend that the department’s request for funding for this
contract be funded and approved.
The long lead times involved in DOC’s efforts to develop proposals for new correctional
facilities, obtain funding, establish sites, design facilities and complete construction compares
very poorly with the comparatively rapid process for developing private correctional facilities.
Taking into account all the stages in the process, MGT estimates that DOC development of a
major new correctional facility requires a minimum of three years. As the department lacks a
great deal of experience in managing prison development and construction, even three years may
be insufficient.
By contrast, the leading private corrections companies, CCA and GEO, have more experience in
prison siting, design and construction than all but the largest correctional systems. This
experience, combined with streamlined management decision-making, ready access to funding
and the use of proven prototype designs all make private development significantly faster than
government processes.
Some correctional systems take advantage of this speed by establishing bifurcated contracts with
private prison companies. One contract is for the development and construction of a correctional
facility that is subsequently lease/purchased back to the state; the other contract addresses private
operation of the facility on the state’s behalf. This allows correctional department to take
advantage of the private sector’s ability to develop facilities quickly, while mitigating any
perceived risk from private operation.

Managing Risk
The proper level of privatization in a prison system has been the subject of a great deal of debate
in the corrections industry. Some states have expressed concern that excessive reliance upon
private contractors diminishes control of prison system funding and management.
To the extent that a system heavily depends upon private contractors and lacks credible
alternatives for bedspace, management of contractors can become difficult. A case in point is
DOC’s experience with Cornell; the department’s inability to come to terms with the contractor’s
demands lead to the loss of critical bedspace. Fortunately, at the time the displaced inmates could
be housed at other department facilities. The loss of that number of beds today would create a
crisis.
As noted earlier, with 17 percent of its prison capacity in private facilities, Oklahoma has reduced
its reliance on private operators in recent years, although the state remains one of the nation’s
major users of private correctional facilities. Many corrections professionals argue that allocating
over 1/3 of a system’s bedspace to private contractors may threaten a state’s ability to effectively
control correctional system operations, policies, and funding. MGT found no evidence that the
current level of privatization has diminished DOC’s autonomy or its management authority over
its private contractors. That said, we examine contract monitoring and management issues later in
Page 3-27

Population & Capacity

this chapter. Reinforced systems for control and effective management of contractors are required
allow the department to move ahead with additional privatization without undue risk.
Another strategy to manage the risk inherent in reliance upon privatization is diversification. This
can take the form of relationships with multiple providers. More importantly, we recommend that
DOC continue to pursue development of state-owned facilities in conjunction with future
privatization initiatives. State facilities can be pursued either through conventional bond
construction financing or through potential private-sector lease/purchase development.
Competition is the strongest tool DOC can use to enforce contractor compliance with state
management. The availability of alternative state or contract beds can act as a powerful incentive
for contractor responsiveness. To the extent that DOC increases its use of privatization, we
strongly recommend the use of an RFP process to solicit competitive long-term proposals for
private facilities. Such a process would significantly increase the department’s leverage in
securing advantageous contract terms and facilities that meet its needs.

Operational Performance
Attaining high levels of operational performance through privatization requires:
1. contract terms and requirements that establish clear, well-defined duties and
responsibilities consistent with the state’s expectations;
2. an effective system for monitoring contractor operations and compliance with
contract terms; and
3. critical analyses of the reasons underlying good or bad contractor performance, and a
willingness to apply such analysis to improve operations.
Effective management systems do not tolerate long-term poor contractor performance. Either the
system identifies, corrects and follows up on contractor operating issues, or the contractor’s
failure to address these issues results in termination of the contract. Similarly, the department
should take note of particularly successful contractor practices and apply these lessons internally
and to other contractors’ operations.
Contractor management of staff turnover is a good example of the need for effective management
of operations across different private facilities. High turnover at private facilities can be an
indicator of managerial deficiencies; furthermore, it inevitably leads to a less-experienced staff
that can in turn contribute to performance problems.
Exhibit 3-20 shows turnover rates for DOC’s contractor facilities in calendar 2006.

Page 3-28

Population & Capacity

EXHIBIT 3-20
DOC Contractor Staff Turnover, 2006
Facility
Cimarron Correctional Facility
Davis Correctional Facility
Great Plains Correctional Facility
Lawton Correctional Facility

Turnover Rate
61%
40%
58%
95%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Note the wide disparity in turnover at the different facilities, ranging from 40 percent at Davis to
95 percent at Lawton. While the Lawton level of turnover is clearly unacceptable and likely to
affect facility performance, DOC also should consider how Davis manages turnover more
effectively. To the extent that Davis’ success is replicable, contract managers should identify its
successful policies and practices and require their application at Lawton.

Contract Management
Management of private correctional bedspace is the responsibility of DOC’s Private Prison
Division, which manages the private prisons and contract jails, and Community Corrections
Private Facilities Monitoring, which is responsible for halfway houses. The Private Prisons
Division reports to the associate director of Field Operations, while the halfway house contracts
are managed by a three-person unit reporting to the deputy director of Community Corrections.
Because these units operate independently, MGT reviewed contract management at each
separately.

Private Prison Contracts
DOC reviews private prison contracts internally before submitting them for formal approval by
the Board of Corrections, Department of Central Services and State Attorney General. MGT
reviewed DOC’s contracts with both CCA and GEO. The contracts are essentially identical
except for the compensation terms.
Term of Agreement: all contracts cover a five-year period, with an initial one-year period and four
one-year renewal options.
The CCA contracts originally were for Cimarron, a 500-cell (960-bed) adult male mediumsecurity facility in Cushing, and Davis, a 500-cell (960-bed) adult male medium-security facility
in Holdenville. The Cimarron facility has since increased capacity to 960 medium- and 72
minimum-security inmates, while the Davis facility has increased to 960 medium- and 50
minimum-security inmates. The GEO contract is for a medium-security facility at Lawton with a
current capacity of 2,526. All of the contracts provide that the number of beds under contract may
be expanded by mutual consent of the parties, with the pricing to be negotiated.

Page 3-29

Population & Capacity

Option to Purchase: Both the CCA and GEO contracts give the state the option to purchase the
facility at “fair market value.”
Termination for Convenience: The GEO and CCA contracts permit either party to cancel the
contract for “convenience.” This is unusual; the more common industry practice is to require a
contractor to show cause for termination of a contract. Cornell most recently exercised this clause
in canceling its contract with the department in 2007. “Termination for convenience” does,
however, give the department useful leverage in dealing with contractors, in that it provides an
effective, if blunt, answer for poor performance or non-responsiveness.
Inmate Housing: All contracts give the vendor the option to rent beds to other jurisdictions if
Oklahoma does not use any portion of the beds for a continuous period of 30 days. Oklahoma can
reserve these beds, but after 15 more days, will have to pay for the beds whether they use them or
not.
Medical Co-Payment Plan: All contracts provide that money received in connection with any
medical co-payment plan shall be reported monthly, and will be retained by the contractor for
defraying medical expenses or for placement in the Inmate Welfare Fund.
Inmate Commissary: All contracts allow commissary items to be priced to cover the cost of
inventory, taxes, commissary personnel and commissary utilities. The GEO contract specifies that
the facility commission cannot exceed 12 percent, but the CCA contract does not. In all contracts,
any surplus funds remaining after expenses and commissions must go to the Inmate Welfare fund.
Discipline and Grievances: All contracts allow the vendor to establish disciplinary and grievance
procedures consistent with ACA guidelines, but reserve the final appeal of grievances to the state.
Any time computations involved must be approved by the contract monitor.
Use of Force, Notification: All contracts require adherence to departmental policy and require the
vendor to loan tapes documenting use of force to the department, but forbid the copying of
videotapes.
Inmate Activity: All contracts require a minimum of 80 percent of eligible inmates to be
“productively occupied” outside of their living quarters for at least 30 hours per week, excluding
meal times, count times and routine institutional functions, in work, educational, vocational or
rehabilitative programs.
Drug Testing: All contracts require at least 5 percent of inmates to be drug-tested each month.
Inmate Programs: All contracts use the LSI and ASUS assessment tools to assess appropriate
classification placement.
Compensation: in the Cimarron Correctional Facility fiscal 2008 renewal, DOC agrees to pay a
base per diem rate of $46.70 plus 60 cents for additional medical services, for a total of $47.30
per inmate. This rate reflects a fiscal 2006 per diem increase of 88 cents and a fiscal 2007 per
diem increase of $2.23. The contractor agrees to a per diem reduction of 42 cents per inmate in
months in which the monthly average daily population is at least 1,011 inmates. Furthermore,
H.B. 1105 added an additional 5 percent per diem increase, or $2.34 per inmate per day, effective
Page 3-30

Population & Capacity

July 1, 2007. This is a performance-based increase, contingent on the contractor maintaining a
satisfactory performance evaluation. If the contractor fails to perform satisfactorily or fails to cure
any deficiency, the per diem returns to the prior level.
For the Davis Facility, the FY 2008 per diem is $46.06 plus 60 cents for additional medical
services, for a total of $46.66; a per diem reduction of 42 cents applies if the average daily
population for the month is at least 990 inmates. DOC has asked the contractor to maintain 240
beds in one unit as a chemical dependency therapeutic unit. This increases the per diem payment
by 40 cents per month for any inmates in this unit.
For the GEO Lawton Facility, the fiscal 2008 renewal sets per diem at $43.57, with a reduction of
40 cents if the monthly average daily population is at least 2,475 (out of a 2,526 maximum). The
original contract provided for a 306-bed chemical dependency therapeutic unit at a cost of 42
cents per inmate-day, spread over the entire population. The contractor also agreed to provide a
306-bed protective custody unit at a cost to the department of 56 cents per inmate-day, again
spread over the entire population.
Contract Monitor: All contracts state that the contract monitor has the right to audit the contractor
and charge them for such annual and statutory audits. The CCA contracts cap this cost at $7,000
per facility per year; no such cap appears in the GEO contract. This clause appears to have been
used in the past as an informal sanction or penalty to assist in enforcing compliance with contract
terms.
Breach & Remedies: All contracts use a Table of Liquidated Damages, a standard approach found
in many private prison contracts. The contracts also give vendors 45 days to cure any documented
breach of contract. This too is a fairly standard clause.

Community Corrections Contracts
The Bridgeway contract is for 99 or fewer inmates; the Riverside contract is for 150. The
contracts have many similarities. Both provide for adherence to DOC policies and cleanliness,
inmate misconduct and grievance procedures. The contractor, as in the private prisons, configures
the sentence time calculation in accordance with departmental policy. Both contracts require the
re-classification of the inmates upon receipt of disciplinary action.
Staffing: The Bridgeway contract requires one employee for each 50 clients throughout the 24hour day. The Riverside contract requires one employee for every 60 clients between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and one for every 100 clients between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00
a.m. Both contracts note: “Case management staff is not considered security for the purpose of
this section. Staffing patterns and a current list of all employees and positions will be made
available upon request to the Contract Administrator.” Most such contracts specify a staffing
pattern and hold the vendor accountable for complying with the plan.
Inmate Management: The contracts require the department to provide notice to the contractor
before conducting any searches or shakedowns of the facility:

Page 3-31

Population & Capacity

The host district, with the approval of the deputy director, will conduct
searches/shakedown of the contract facility. The DOC shall give twenty-four (24) hours
notice to the authorized facility designee prior to any organized shakedown. The host
district shall ensure the only areas are searched are those which house DOC clients.
Most states reserve the right to conduct inspections or searches of contract facilities unannounced,
at any time.
Use of Force and Escape clauses seem reasonable and require the contractor to adhere to DOC
policies.
Visitation standards also require adherence to DOC policy. The Bridgeway contract permits an
extra two-hour family visit during the week; the Riverside contract is silent on this matter.
Classification and case management are governed by DOC policy and all case managers are to be
trained by DOC.
Both contractors are required to assist clients in obtaining requisite documentation such as
identification cards, social security cards, etc. DOC is to be reimbursed for such document costs.
Drug Testing: The Bridgeway contract requires testing for at least 25 percent of the population
monthly while the Riverside agreement requires 10 percent monthly.
Contract Compliance: Both contracts require that the “Contract Administrator will audit the
facility annually and any other time as deemed necessary to maintain contract workplace….
Contractor will provide the Contract Administrator with monthly reports for compliance and data
gathering.”
Payment for Services: Bridgeway’s per diem is $31.75. Riverside’s contract, as amended,
provides $35.71. Both contracts provided a performance-based, 2 percent per diem increase in the
amount of 64 cents per client-day for fiscal 2006. The Riverside contract also provided a
performance-based per diem increase of 5 percent, or $1.62 per inmate day, for 2007; this too was
based on satisfactory performance.
Breach: Under both contracts, the penalty for breach and final failure to cure (after several 30-day
periods and by mutual agreement) is one of the following:


withholding of per diem as liquidated damages;



reduce the inmate count; or



contract termination.

Nether contract offers specific penalties for failure to find work for inmates or attain targeted
outcomes.
Unlike the private prison contracts, there is a significant degree of variability in the contract
language for the halfway houses. Reportedly, some of the vendors were very active in negotiating
contract terms, while others simply accepted DOC’s proposed contract language.
Page 3-32

Population & Capacity

Contract Monitoring
Contract monitoring should review all aspects of the private correctional facilities to document
compliance with the contract terms. The monitoring system should assess performance, identify
areas in need of improvement and suggest appropriate actions.
Contract terms, however, cannot cover every conceivable aspect of correctional facility
operations. Performance can still be substandard in a facility that is in formal conformance with
policy or contract terms. Monitoring systems must have sufficient flexibility to address issues that
may not be addressed in contract language, but still have a significant bearing on contractor
performance.
DOC has a highly developed and sophisticated system of contract monitoring for both private
prisons and community facilities. The department’s long involvement with privatization has
produced substantial internal expertise in the management of these contracts.
Each week, monitors inspect institutional hygiene, security and staffing to assure contract
compliance, and meet with wardens to discuss the resolution of any problems. They also conduct
detailed security inspection audits on a quarterly basis, and review all Serious Incident Reports.
When contract monitors identify a contract violation at a private prison, DOC employs the
following protocol:


The monitor meets with the warden to resolve the problem.



If the problem is not resolved, the monitor sends a written report to the
contract administrator.



The contract administrator contacts the appropriate corporate contact to obtain
compliance.



If the situation still is not resolved, the contract administrator initiates the
liquidated damage process with a formal letter to the corporation, giving them
a time period to cure the contract violation.



The contract administrator also checks with DOC’s legal division regarding
the contract provisions.



The contract administrator contacts the associate director of Field Operations
and the DOC Director to discuss the issue.



The problem is submitted to the Executive Committee, which makes a
determination regarding the assessment of liquidated damages.

The enforcement of liquidated damages provisions, however, is extremely rare and timeconsuming. DOC’s process is somewhat cumbersome in that it requires multiple levels of
consideration by executive staff. The amount of time associated with this process is a definite
disincentive to the use of liquidated damages as a contract management tool.

Page 3-33

Population & Capacity

Instead, it appears that DOC administrators have used more informal sanctions in response to
contract breaches. These measures have included additional contract audits (which are the
financial responsibility of the vendor) and adjustments in a facility’s population level. As system
crowding worsens, however, the flexibility to reduce population in response to problems
diminishes significantly.
The failure to use liquidated damages effectively is a serious problem with DOC’s contract
management process. It has eroded the credibility of the contract monitoring system, and
ultimately could impair DOC’s capacity to hold contractors accountable. A request to invoke
liquidated damages should simply require a review by one associate director, with final approval
by the director.
Contract monitoring for the halfway house and community program is also hampered somewhat
by the lack of standardization among the contracts. Customized contracts for each vendor make
consistent monitoring problematic. While the contract terms need not be identical, there should be
core issues and standards common to all of these contracts, to provide a foundation for improved
monitoring.
MGT also questions the utility of maintaining separate units to manage the private prison
contracts and halfway house contracts. While specific contract terms may differ between the two
programs, the work processes of contract monitoring are very similar. The halfway house
program, in particular, could benefit from additional staff resources made available through a
consolidation of the two units. Given the fact that contract monitoring is a purchasing function,
we recommend that both units be consolidated under the associate director of Administrative
Services.

Summary of Recommendations
DOC has made very effective use of private correctional capacity in managing its growing
population. Contract rates are extremely competitive, and play an important role in holding down
department costs. Our analysis indicates that the difference in cost between state and private
operation of correctional facilities is relatively narrow, once differences in facilities, missions and
operations are taken into consideration. Contract terms and monitoring systems are welldesigned. Problems in contract management appear largely in the area of enforcement, where
DOC’s process for enforcing sanctions is an impediment to effective contract management. MGT
makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 3-19. Pursue additional privatization opportunities to obtain
additional correctional system capacity quickly. DOC should contract with CCA for the
new 660-bed maximum-security unit at Davis to address its immediate maximumsecurity bed needs.
Recommendation 3-20. Develop a RFP process to encourage competition for the
development of additional private capacity. To the extent the department invests in more
private prison capacity, a formal RFP process that establishes the parameters for the type
of facility required will better meet the needs of the department, while maximizing
vendor competition.
Page 3-34

Population & Capacity

Recommendation 3-21. Divide future private prison contracts into separate agreements
for building leases and facility operation, provided that such arrangements are
financially advantageous. Such arrangements substantially reduce the state’s risk in
privatization.
Recommendation 3-22. Consolidate management of private prison and halfway house
contracts into a single unit reporting to the associate director of Administrative
Services. This will enhance consistency in management across of all of the private
facility contracts.
Recommendation 3-23. Continue to refine standardized criteria for monitoring private
prisons. Monitoring criteria should be revised periodically to address operational quality
issues that develop over time and department priorities. Regular change in monitoring
instruments and criteria help keep monitors effective and attuned to emerging contract
issues.
Recommendation 3-24. Establish core criteria for monitoring community programs
and jails that address common issues such as security, hygiene and classification,
while allowing for individual criteria that address concerns specific to a facility
contract. Contractors should be treated uniformly and held accountable against the same
standards. Current community center and jail contract monitoring is much less developed
and effective than the private prison contract monitoring system.
Recommendation 3-25. Streamline the process for assessing liquidated damages to
ensure that it provides a credible incentive for performance. Effective enforcement of
contract provisions requires timely response to serious issues. A request to invoke
liquidated damages should require review only by the associate director of
Administrative Services and a final approval by the director to expedite the process.
Recommendation 3-26. Standardize community correctional center contract provisions.
Contracts should feature standard provisions, requirements, and terms to assure that all
contractors are accountable for operating consistently and meet the same contract
requirements.
Recommendation 3-27. Contracts should include language authorizing department
review and inspection of contractor operations at any time. Most states reserve the right
to conduct inspections or searches of contract facilities unannounced, at any time. Such
inspections are a vital element of any program to effectively monitor vendor compliance
with contract terms.
Recommendation 3-28. Department contracts should not allow vendors to terminate
contracts for convenience. Vendors should be held to contracts unless they can show
cause for contract termination. This is necessary to protect the interests of the
department.

Page 3-35

4.0 CAPACITY MANAGEMENT

4.0 CAPACITY MANAGEMENT
Classification
As part of its review, MGT examined DOC’s custody classification system. This system is used
to determine an appropriate custody level for each inmate while incarcerated. It is not intended to
produce a risk assessment, such as tools used by the Parole Board, but instead to determine the
type of security needed to manage the inmate safely.
DOC’s system has been validated by previous studies funded by the National Institute of
Corrections and conducted by members of the present review team.
Unfortunately, the department’s centralized classification unit is plagued by a lack of accurate
classification data from the private prisons. Due to questions about the accuracy of the database,
MGT completed a detailed analysis of a sample of 698 inmates who were in custody in August
2007. The samples were stratified by gender (467 males and 231 females). For each sampled
case, the DOC classification unit audited each case to ensure its accuracy. This analysis was
supplemented by interviews with DOC staff and observations of the classification process at both
public and private correctional facilities.
MGT’s major findings include the following:
The classification system uses initial and reclassification forms that were designed separately
for males and females.
As with most classification systems, DOC’s system for both male and female prisoners is based
on initial and reclassification scoring forms and processes. The first, obviously, relies on the
prisoner’s attributes at the time of admission, while the latter places greater emphasis on the
inmate’s conduct while incarcerated. The use of separate forms helps to ensure that females are
not misclassified by a system designed for and validated by males.
Items used on the forms are objective and meet national standards.
The factors weighed by DOC are similar to those used by other states. Exhibits 4-1 through 4-4
provide a detailed statistical portrait of how these factors were applied to the sample population
MGT studied. Note that the exhibits provide the share of inmates who had either received no
disciplinary conduct reports or only a Class B (minor) report since incarceration.

Page 4-1

Capacity Management

EXHIBIT 4-1
DOC Male Reclassification Scores, by Item – August 2007

Reclassification Item

Number

Percent
Share

467

Percent Share
with No
Reports/
Class B
73%

Severity of Current Offense
Moderate
High
Highest
Serious Offense History
None or low
Moderate
High
Highest
Escape History
No escapes/attempts
Escapes from minimum/community
Escapes from medium/escape with injury
Number of Active Disciplinary Convictions
None
One
Two
Three or more
Most Serious Disciplinary Conviction
None/Class B
Class A
Class X
Program Participation
None, waiting list, enrolled, participating
Completed
Adjustment
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3 and 4
Current Age
25 or younger
26-31
32-39
40-49
50 or older

52
146
60
209

11%
31%
13%
45%

73%
68%
82%
75%

407
11
24
25

87%
2%
5%
5%

74%
73%
67%
68%

433
16
18

93%
3%
4%

74%
69%
72%

348
80
23
16

75%
17%
5%
3%

91%
31%
0%
0%

343
77
47

73%
16%
10%

100%
0%
0%

323
144

69%
31%

76%
69%

57
112
298

12%
24%
64%

9%
61%
91%

64
86
125
120
72

14%
18%
27%
26%
15%

55%
65%
68%
86%
89%

*Determined using most serious disciplinary score item.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 4-2

Capacity Management

EXHIBIT 4-2
DOC Female Reclassification Scores, by Item – August 2007

Reclassification Item
Base
Severity of Current Offense
Low
Moderate
High
Highest
Serious Offense History
None or low
Moderate
High
Highest
Escape History
No escapes/attempts
Escapes from minimum/community
Escapes from medium/resulting in injury
Medical, Mental Health, Substance Abuse
No severe need
One severe
Two severe
Three severe
Number of Active Disciplinary Convictions
None
One
Two
Three or more
Most Serious Disciplinary Conviction
None/Class B
Class A
Class X
Program Participation
None, waiting list, enrolled, participating
Completed
Adjustment
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3 and 4
Current Age
20 or younger
21-38
39 or older

Number

Percent
Share

231

Percent Share
with No
Reports/
Class B
84%

61
93
25
52

26%
40%
11%
23%

92%
84%
68%
83%

221
0
0
10

96%
0%
0%
4%

84%
0%
0%
80%

231
0
0

100%
0%
0%

84%
0%
0%

25
118
72
16

11%
51%
31%
7%

92%
84%
82%
81%

194
21
9
7

84%
9%
4%
3%

96%
29%
22%
0%

194
29
8

84%
13%
3%

100%
0%
0%

147
84

64%
36%

84%
85%

20
49
162

9%
21%
70%

30%
74%
94%

5
129
97

2%
56%
42%

80%
78%
93%

*Determined using most serious disciplinary score item.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 4-3

Capacity Management

EXHIBIT 4-3
Score and Final Classification Results, Males – August 2007

Classification Level
Scored Level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Final Level
CCC
Minimum
Medium
Maximum

N

%

% with No
Reports/
Class B

318
104
45

68%
22%
10%

89%
36%
49%

26
208
214
19

6%
45%
46%
4%

81%
83%
65%
47%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

EXHIBIT 4-4
Score and Final Classification Results, Females – August 2007

Classification Level
Scored Level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Final Level
CCC/Other
Minimum
Medium
Maximum

Number

Percent
Share

Percent share,
No Reports/
Class B

197
30
4

85%
13%
2%

93%
30%
25%

6
170
51
4

3%
74%
22%
2%

83%
91%
67%
25%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

In the sample, the overall number of misconducts was relatively stable over time, with some
fluctuation in the less serious Class A and B offenses (Exhibit 4-5).
EXHIBIT 4-5
Disciplinary Reports by Fiscal Year and Class Level
FY
2005
2006
2007

Class X
2,446
2,914
2,953

Class A
7,050
5,361
6,573

Class B
4,990
7,242
5,156

Total
14,486
15,517
14,682

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 4-4

Capacity Management

In general, the share of prisoners with no reports or a Class B offense was quite high (73 percent
for males and 84 percent for females). This strongly indicates that the vast majority of the
population does not pose a significant management problem. Scored and final custody levels
further reinforced this finding. As shown in Exhibit 4-1, the majority of male prisoners scored for
minimum custody; only 10 percent scored maximum. For the females (Exhibit 4-2), the share in
the lower custody levels was even higher.
Classification employees can use various “overrides” to change the custody level indicated by the
score. These overrides are classified as discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary overrides are
utilized when there is a departure from the scored custody level based on the judgment of the
classification staff. Mandatory overrides occur when overrides must be employed by staff due to
requirements contained within department policy.. The differences between scored and final
custody levels (Exhibits 4-3 and 4-4) reflect the override process, which allows DOC
classification employees to adjust the scored level. For the male population, this process reduced
both the minimum and maximum custody populations. A variety of reasons were given for these
overrides, but the most common, in both discretionary and mandatory overrides, involved
considerations of “time left to serve” (Exhibit 4-6).
EXHIBIT 4-6
Reclassification Overrides – August 2007
Override
Base
Discretionary Higher
None
Circumstances of offense
History of violence
Gang affiliation
Time left to serve
Management problem
Felony detainer
Other
Discretionary Lower
None
Time left to serve
Outstanding conduct
Other
Mandatory
None
Time left to serve
Life without parole
INS detainer
Other

Males
N
467

Females
N
%
231

%

377
4
4
1
14
3
0
1

81%
1%
1%
0%
3%
1%
0%
0%

150
0
0
0
12
3
1
0

65%
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
0%
0%

7
23
1
26

1%
5%
0%
6%

2
4
1
5

1%
2%
0%
2%

311
73
13
6
20

67%
16%
3%
1%
4%

152
19
2
0
0

66%
8%
1%
0%
0%

*Missing cases excluded.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 4-5

Capacity Management

Exhibits 4-3 and 4-4 indicate the system is working appropriately, in that prisoners in higher
custody levels tend to have higher rates of serious misconduct. There is relatively little
differentiation between medium and maximum scores, but once the overrides are applied a better
relationship emerges. This may because social pressures encourage prisoners to behave according
to their assigned rather than their scored custody level.
The data, however, also indicate that DOC makes excessive use of discretionary overrides. This is
due largely to changes in custody level made purely to accommodate the bed capacity and
custody levels of the individual facilities. In particular, inmates who score as maximum or
minimum security often are overridden to medium, in order to match the availability of beds by
custody level. This practice jeopardizes the safety and security of the institutions and should be
discontinued.

Summary of Recommendations
MGT offers five recommendations for DOC’s classification system:
Recommendation 4-1. DOC should lock down maximum-custody inmates only for
administrative and disciplinary segregation purposes. DOC should establish a
maximum-security general population status or some other classification lower than
lockdown status.
Recommendation 4-2. The prisoner’s custody level should not be changed simply to
match the availability of beds at the facility to which he or she is assigned. The inmates
custody level should be based only on the score level or an appropriate override based on
known factors.
Recommendation 4-3. The department needs to add capacity for high security inmates.
A major outcome of the present classification assessment processes is that there are an
insufficient number of high security beds to accommodate the number of male prisoner
population requiring that particular classification level. At least 10 percent of the male
population should be assigned to a single cell, high-security unit based on disciplinary
factors, criminal history, adjustment history, etc.
The present maximum security
capacity of the DOC is not sufficient to meet this essential security need.
Recommendation 4-4. DOC’s Central Classification Unit should audit and evaluate the
entire classification system annually, for reliability and validity as well as data quality.
MGT’s review raised many questions about the accuracy of classification data in the
DOC database.
Recommendation 4-5. The use of maximum custody for the female population should
be discontinued. Highly disruptive and dangerous females are extremely rare and are best
housed in a single high-control unit, under administrative and disciplinary segregation.

Page 4-6

Capacity Management

DOC Use of County Jail Beds
Title 57, Section 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes states that “Once the judgment and sentence is
transmitted to the Department of Corrections, the department will be responsible for the cost of
housing the inmate in the county jail from the date that the department receives the transmittal
until the date of transfer of the inmate from the county jail.”
On October 29, 2007, county sheriffs were housing 1,323 DOC inmates under this provision. Of
these, 1,163 were male and 160 were female. The DOC county jail population has more than
doubled since fiscal 2000 (Exhibit 4-7).

N u m b er o f In carcerated O ffen d ers

EXHIBIT 4-7
County Jail Backup Population
180 0
160 0
140 0
120 0
100 0
8 00
6 00
4 00
2 00
0

F

1,536
1,303

1,323
1,166

1,108

707

637

0
Y2

00
F

0
Y2

629

01
F

0
Y2

02
F

0
Y2

03
F

0
Y2

04
F

0
Y2

05
F

0
Y2

06
F

0
Y2

07

En d o f Ye ar

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and the Criminal Justice Resource Center.

DOC populations in Oklahoma’s county jails ranged from a high of 166 in Tulsa County to less
than five in 23 counties. In summary, as of October 29, 2007:







23 of the state’s 66 county jails (34 percent) held less than five inmates
awaiting transfer.
13 of the 66 jails (19.6 percent) held more than 25 inmates awaiting transfer.
Oklahoma and Tulsa counties accounted for 23 percent of the backlog.
with an estimated total statewide jail capacity of 11,727 (according to the
Department of Health Jail Inspector), DOC’s backlog represented 11 percent
of total county jail bed capacity.
with the 645 county beds under formal contracts with DOC, the department
accounted for 16.7 percent of Oklahoma county jail bed capacity.
Page 4-7

Capacity Management

A May 3, 2007 report by the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission indicates that in 2006, DOC
inmates spent an average of 55 days in jail before DOC reception, a substantial increase over the
2005 average of 47 days. Some inmates wait far longer than 55 days, but in many of these cases
we found that the delay was voluntary, either on the part of the offender or the county. In other
instances, pending legal action on other criminal charges prolongs the jail stay.
The jail backup, nonetheless, is directly related to DOC’s capacity issues. As its available
capacity diminishes, the system simply can no longer accept newly sentenced offenders on a
timely basis. With the present reception center operating at maximum capacity, and internal
options to move inmates laterally within DOC restricted due to capacity limitations, the only
relief valve available is to delay the intake of new inmates. As a result, the county jail backup has
become an indispensable element of DOC bed capacity.
The growth in the county jail backup numbers has paralleled the increase both in DOC’s capacity
and its population (compare Exhibit 4-7 with Exhibit 4-8). As the gap between the DOC
capacity and its actual population has narrowed, the DOC’s us of jail beds, both back –up and
contract, has increased.
EXHIBIT 4-8
DOC End-of-Year Population and Capacity
25,000

24,500

24,000

23,500

23,000
EOY Population
EOY Capacity
22,500

22,000

21,500

21,000

20,500
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

From DOC’s perspective, the jail backup also has financial benefits. The actual amount of
reimbursement to jails specified in Section 38 of Title 57 (as amended effective January 1, 2007),
sets compensation for jails at the rate of $27 per day. DOC’s fiscal 2009 budget request includes
an increase in the per diem to $30. This is not far below the actual per diems of DOC-operated
facilities, but well below any of the other contracted bed options DOC presently uses.
Page 4-8

Capacity Management

It should be noted that jail per diem cannot be closely compared to the cost of any of DOC’s other
bed options, since the jail contracts do not include programming requirements and DOC assumes
some portion of the cost of inmate medical care. Even so, at $27 per day, the use of jail beds is a
bargain for DOC.
Title 57, Section 37B allows county sheriffs to obtain relief from housing state inmates when the
county jail reaches its established capacity. When this situation occurs, the county sheriff must
notify the DOC director. Within 72 hours of this notification, DOC must schedule a date for the
transportation and reception of the inmates at a facility it designates. This option is most
frequently used by Tulsa County.
Oklahoma County has received some relief to the backup through litigation; state inmates can
stay in the Oklahoma County jail for no more than 45 days before being accepted by DOC. In the
aftermath of this limitation, the Oklahoma County Sheriff and DOC agreed to convert some jail
beds to contracted beds reserved for the state.
Despite the short-term advantages that jail backup housing provides to the state, the current
situation has a negative effect on many other elements of the Oklahoma criminal justice system:


The sheer number of prison-bound inmates in county jail may limit the
freedom and ability of local judges to commit other offenders to jail.



DOC’s Lexington Reception facility has been completely overwhelmed by the
flow of state inmates. Lexington presently operates at its maximum capacity
and requires nine working days at minimum to process an offender and
complete the required assessments. The actual average processing time is 14
days, due to the need for medical tests and mental health examinations.



DOC’s main priority is moving inmates out of reception and replacing them
with inmates from the jails. This severely limits DOC’s ability to focus on
other priorities, such as adjusting inmate populations among facilities. Inmates
slated for medium security, for instance, may be held at a maximum-security
facility to accommodate the placement of inmates just released from reception.

Contracted Jail Beds
In addition to the backup situation, Title 57, Section 561 and Title 74, Sections 1001–1008 of
Oklahoma state law authorize DOC to house inmates under contract with the county sheriffs.
Under these statutes, the number of jails beds under contract with DOC has risen from 345 in
fiscal 2000 to 645 in July 2007 to 711 as of October 29, 2007. Nineteen counties have contract
beds for DOC inmates, ranging from 145 at Oklahoma County to just seven at Jefferson County.
Exhibit 4-9 shows the rise in DOC’s number of contracted county jail beds from fiscal 2000 to
2007.

Page 4-9

Capacity Management

EXHIBIT 4-9
Contractual Jail Beds – Fiscal 2000 to Fiscal 2007
700
645

N u m b er o f In ca rc era te d O ffen d ers

600
565

500
421

423

400

409

364

300

345
269

200
100
0
FY2000 F Y2001

FY2002 F Y2003

FY2004 F Y2005

F Y2006 FY2007

En d o f Y e ar

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The fiscal 2008 per diem for contracted jail beds is $32.50, except for Oklahoma County, which
receives $32.00 (excluding inmate pay). DOC’s fiscal 2009 request would increase the per diem
to $35. As with the backup jail beds, the county jail contracts offer DOC its most cost-effective
option, even at the proposed fiscal 2009 rate.

Medical Costs for DOC Inmates in County Jail
A major point of contention between DOC and the sheriffs is the set of standards used to
determine reimbursements of medical costs for DOC prisoners housed in county jails.
Responsibility for these payment varies based on various Oklahoma statutes including:


Title 57, Section 52; General Responsibility



Title 22, Section 991a; CSSP – Nights and Weekends



Title 57, Section 38; Inmates Waiting Reception



Title 22, Section 988.12; Community Sentencing

DOC attempted to clarify the intent of state law through a notice to sheriffs outlining
reimbursement requirements as of November 1, 2006.
The department’s analysis and interpretation of the statutes clarified and in some cases restricted
reimbursements for state inmates housed in county jails. The November 1, 2006 notice sets the
following requirements for payment. If the inmate:
Page 4-10

Capacity Management



has a certified judgment and sentence, DOC reimburses all emergencies based
on Medicaid rates and fee structures.



is housed in the jail under the provisions of the Community Sentencing Act,
DOC reimburses for all medical expenses required by Title 22.



is housed under the Community Service Sentencing Program (CSSP) portion
of the Community Sentencing Act, DOC reimburses only for emergency
treatment, based on actual cost.



is being housed as an Intermediate Sanctions, DOC reimburses only for
emergency treatment, based on Medicaid rates.

This policy places a substantial fiscal burden on the counties and can interfere with the medical
care DOC inmates receive, since the policy provides counties with an incentive to defer medical
treatment in anticipation of the inmate’s transfer to DOC. The inmate may arrive at DOC in
worse physical condition and requiring more medical care due to the lack of timely treatment.
To clarify the legislature’s original intent and resolve the problems the present statutory
requirements create for all parties, DOC has supported legislation that would modify the statutes
to require the department to pay for the medical care of all offenders with a certified judgment
and sentence.

Summary of Recommendations
DOC’s should develop a strategic plan that will establish and maintain a 45-day cap on jail
backup detention. To achieve this objective:
Recommendation 4-6. DOC should expand its reception capability (in terms of beds
and staff) beyond the additional capacity it will receive when the female reception unit
at Mabel Bassett (92 beds) opens.
Recommendation 4-7. The transfer of female reception to Mabel Bassett will yield 39
more male reception beds. Future reception space needs will be difficult to predict until
enough beds are available to process all inmates in a routine manner. DOC should review
the situation based on a one-year analysis of intake. Reception capacity should be an
element of the facility master plan process recommended elsewhere in this report.
Recommendation 4-8. Whenever feasible, DOC should contract with sheriffs for
available beds. These provide the department with a dependable source of relatively
cheap secure beds for inmates who do not need extensive programming, while assisting
the counties with critical funding.
Recommendation 4-9. The legislature should adopt legislation, similar to that proposed
in its last session, to clarify and expand DOC’s responsibility for the medical expenses
of state inmates in county jail. DOC originally estimated that this would cost $1.4
million annually. MGT has been unable to confirm this estimate, as present payments to
jails are not itemized or billed separately.

Page 4-11

5.0 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

5.0 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
Oklahoma Drug Courts
Background
MGT’s review of the Oklahoma Drug Court (ODC) system was based primarily on data provided
by Oklahoma’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (MHSAS), which
funds the ODC system. These data concerned offenders admitted to and released from ODC since
fiscal 2002.
Due to privacy concerns, MHSAS did not allow MGT to review the case files, but instead
provided us with its own analysis of the pertinent data. While the drug court staff was extremely
helpful and cooperative, any subsequent study of this program should be allowed to analyze the
files directly, to expedite the process and ensure an independent assessment.
The review team received valuable data from the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center
(CJRC), which maintains data files on DOC prisoners, and also considered data from other U.S.
drug court systems. The team conducted on-site observations at the Oklahoma, Tulsa and Payne
county drug courts, and reviewed practices at 10 other courts around the state through interviews
with employees of DOC, the drug courts, law enforcement and district attorney’s offices. These
locations represented all six DOC probation and parole districts.
According information provided by MHSAS and the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource
Center,1
Drug Court is a district court supervised substance abuse treatment program that
offers nonviolent, felony offenders an opportunity to return to the community as
productive members of society instead of being incarcerated in prison.
Drug Court is made up of a team that includes a district court judge, district
attorney, defense counsel, coordinator, substance abuse treatment provider, and
law enforcement…
An individual enters Drug Court by pleading guilty to a specific charge and
specific punishment—prison time. Reception to prison is delayed pending a
contractual agreement between the Drug Court and offender, who agrees to
program rules and sanctions. In exchange for successful completion of the
treatment program, the court usually dismisses the original charge. However, for
repeated noncompliance with the program, an individual is swiftly terminated
from the program and sent directly to prison.
Like all drug court systems, ODC is designed to divert some offenders from prison. Oklahoma’s
system, however, has two features that that set it apart from its counterparts in other states.

1

Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center, Oklahoma Statistical Analysis Center. Analysis of Oklahoma Drug
Courts: Fiscal Years 2002-2003. By NNcy Warren, Lorrie Byrum, Kristy Spiczka, Bill Chown, and Carol Furr.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, January 2004, page 1. http://www.ocjrc.net/pubFiles/Drug%20Court/DCreport0203.pdf

Page 5-1

Community Programs

First, the program’s stated intent is to accept only persons who, had the drug courts not existed,
would have received a significant prison term. Most other U.S. drug courts do not explicitly target
prison-bound defendants.
Second, offenders who fail to complete the drug court program must serve a lengthy prison term
(Exhibit 5-1). About 92 percent of persons admitted to the ODC program have pled guilty to an
offense carrying a prison term. This requirement is intended to give offenders a powerful
incentive to succeed, and to encourage full compliance the program’s rules.
ODC’s structure and requirements make it clear that if the drug courts do not produce high
success rates among this population, they will not be cost-effective and instead may increase the
department’s costs.
Oklahoma initiated its drug court system in 2002. At the time of MGT’s review, 47 counties were
participating in ODC, and nearly 7,300 persons had been admitted to the program (Exhibit 5-1).
In fiscal 2007, the program had a funded capacity of about 4,000 and admitted nearly 2,000
offenders; two years before, its funded capacity was 1,500.
EXHIBIT 5-1
Profile of the Oklahoma Drug Courts
Fiscal 2002-2007
Attribute
Counties Participating
Number of Drug Courts
Admissions FY 2002-2007
Admissions FY 2007
Capacity FY 2007
Releases FY 2002-2007
% Successful
Overall Length of Stay in Program
Successful Terminations
Unsuccessful terminations
Delayed Imposed Sentence
Prison
Suspended Prison Sentence
Split Sentence
Other

Number
47
36
7,254
1,960
4,026
3,504
58%
17 months
20 months
13 months
92%
2%
3%
3%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

Because some participants stay in the drug court program for as long as two years, many
enrollees have not yet left the program. MHSAS reports that, as of October 2007, 3,504 inmates
had left ODC; about 58 percent of these successfully completed the terms of the program. An
earlier review of the program, ending in fiscal 2004, showed a higher success rate of 67 percent.
But recent offenders admitted to the drug court program have had a higher number of prior arrests
and convictions than their predecessors, so the average success rate is unknown and probably will
remain so a year or two.
Page 5-2

Community Programs

MGT’s analysis of the 3,504 reported program terminations indicates that these inmates spent an
average of 17 months in the program. Those who completed the program successfully—receiving
a dismissal of their charges spent an average of 20 months in the program, while those who did
not averaged about 13 months.
The 58 percent success rate reported by MHSAS was lower than those reported by the National
Drug Court Institute (67 to 71 percent) of their analysis of drug courts nationally, but the earlier
67 percent rate for those who completed the program before 2004 fell within the average national
range. Any comparisons of this nature, at any rate, are somewhat suspect due to differences in
local populations.

Screening and Intervention
Based on the review team’s direct observations and interviews conducted throughout the state,
MGT produced the following general description of the screening and intervention process. It was
clear that there are variations in this procedure among the various counties, but this description is
typical for the majority of drug courts reviewed.
Identification and Application: Potential participants usually apply for admission through their
attorneys early in the court process. Individuals can be referred to the drug court program at any
point in the process, however, if treatment seems an appropriate response. The drug court
coordinator completes basic background and application documents that profile the offender and
the charges he or she faces. This information then is forwarded to the district attorney for review.
Eligibility and Admission: To be eligible for the drug court program, the defendant must be
charged with a nonviolent felony offense, with a higher priority placed on prison-bound
defendants. (MHSAS has penalized counties that admit too many first offenders through
reductions in their drug court grants.)2
According to ODC personnel, the drug courts rarely reject applicants approved by a district
attorney, but DAs sometimes reject applicants a drug court team wants to include. The criteria for
inclusion or exclusion, beyond legal eligibility, vary by county and by district attorney.
Once approved by the district attorney, individuals are immediately assessed to determine their
treatment needs and other program and service priorities. In Tulsa and Oklahoma City, these
assessments are performed by independent contractual assessment agencies, allowing for swift
response and objective judgments of appropriate treatment.
Once approved for the program, the offender must plead guilty to a specific charge and agree to a
deferred or delayed prison sentence. In fiscal 2006, the average length of time between
application and admission to the drug court program was 39 days.3

2

Wright, David, Ph.D. Director of Research, Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center. Interview, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, August 30, 2007.
3
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Tulsa County District Community Corrections, Probation and Parole. MHSAS
Annual Report 2006, page 2.

Page 5-3

Community Programs

Drug Court Team: The drug court team includes the district judge, a drug court coordinator, an
assistant district attorney, a public defender, law enforcement personnel and one or more
treatment providers. In smaller county programs, the drug court coordinator may also be the
treatment provider and/or a private provider of community supervision. Probation programs
partner with some but not all drug courts. In some courts, the police are partners and may serve as
the community supervision agent.
MHSAS drug court funding supports the drug court coordinator and the treatment provider(s). All
other partners’ participation is funded by their own agency budgets. This funding approach has
greatly affected DOC caseloads in that this program has increased the number of offenders that
the DOC staff is required to supervise, without the support of additional funding. .As noted
elsewhere in this chapter, the legislature has authorized the hiring of 50 additional probation and
parole officers (PPOs) to improve caseloads, but departmental appropriations levels have not
been increased to fund these positions. The legislative expectation is that the department would
fill these positions through available resources generated by savings created by turnover,
vacancies, unexpended funds from other lines, etc. The funding of these positions totals
$2,599,000.
It is important to note that the level of effort and intensity of supervision associated with the drug
court is very high, far exceeding not only that normally provided for offenders of this type, but to
offenders with much higher risk levels as well.
For example, in Oklahoma City, about 400 offenders participate in the program at any time. Court
team members are involved in the staffing and monitoring of the offender case for as many as
three full days each week, in addition to their other responsibilities. The number of weekly
contacts that drug court and DOC probation staff or other supervision providers have with the
offenders far exceeds that for any other offender population in Oklahoma.
Program: The drug court team reviews each case, meets each participant and orients him or her
in the program. The participant must begin counseling within 48 hours of admission, submit to
urinalysis six to eight times per month, attend group and individual treatment sessions and attend
three Alcoholic Anonymous meetings a week.
There are five major phases to Oklahoma’s drug court program (with some local variations):


Phase I lasts for about six weeks; it requires weekly court appearances and is
intended to stabilize the participant and make them accustomed with drug
court routines and expectations.



Phase II is about two months long and focuses on employment and educational
activities. The participant reports to court every two weeks during this phase.



Phase III is generally the longest, lasting for about six months, and focusing
on changing behaviors, relationships and thinking patterns.



Phase IV lasts for about four months and focuses on maintaining the changes
begun in Phase III.



Phase V, or Aftercare, reduces the intensity of monitoring and reporting as the
individual advances to graduation.
Page 5-4

Community Programs

Incentives and Sanctions: In a best-case scenario, a cooperative drug court client could finish the
program in about 13.5 months. Most participants, however, face challenges along the way that
require court intervention. Common problems include positive, missed or adulterated drug tests
and missed treatment sessions.4
Instead of revoking the participant’s probation, the courts make use of a series of graduated
sanctions, including judicial admonishment, jail time, community service, increased attendance at
self-help meetings and more frequent drug testing. The courts also offer rewards and incentives
for good behavior, such as praise from the judge, gift certificates, candy, applause and looser
reporting requirements.
Local Variations: The two counties with the largest drug courts, Tulsa and Oklahoma, use DOC
probation officers as part of the drug court team. Not all counties use probation officers, however;
in some counties, the drug court coordinator makes home visits and performs other supervision
duties. MGT asked some counties that do not include probation officers in the ODC program why
they do not; some couldn’t explain why, other than “that’s how it’s always been.” Some believe
that probation workers do not want to be involved; still others believe that this alternative
supervision approach better serves the needs both of public safety and the participants.
Another significant variation from general practice involves Rogers County, which uses a brief
stay in prison as one of its sanctions for noncompliance. The Rogers County judge sends poorly
performing participants to prison for stays of between four and 12 months, and then brings them
back to court for a judicial review. If the offender has behaved well in prison, the judge will
vacate the prison sentence and return them to the drug court program. This sanction usually is
applied to eight to 10 individuals annually out of an average of 120 participants in the program at
any given time.5
Another variation that certainly should be standardized statewide is the use of the drug court
program as an intermediate sanction for probation violations on other charges. Most violations of
probation appeared to involve failed drug tests. ODC participation is used extensively as a
sanction in Oklahoma and Pittsburg counties, and is used elsewhere to a lesser degree. The use of
this option produces participants that were in fact likely to be prison-bound, as the program’s
priorities prefer.
Absconders: Absconders remain listed as enrolled in ODC until they are returned to court on a
warrant for a final disposition. Depending on the circumstances, the drug court team may decide
to reinstate the participant in the program.
According to MHSAS, only 4 percent of drug court participants are “absent” at any given time.
Data from the DOC probation office, however, shows a considerably higher absconder rate—24
percent—for Oklahoma County.6 Other county programs MGT spoke with did not know their
absconder rates. When asked how they deal with absconders, the drug courts generally said that,
barring the commission of a new and serious offense, most were readmitted to the program and
allowed to resume participation, with some limited sanction applied.

4

Tulsa County, MHSAS Annual Report, 2006, page 2.
Condren, Sheila A., Associate District Judge, 12th Judicial District, Rogers County, Oklahoma. Telephone interview,
September 17, 2007.
6
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Central District Community Corrections. Annual Report 2005-2006, page 6-7.
5

Page 5-5

Community Programs

Profile and Analysis of Drug Court Admissions
As noted earlier, MHSAS provided MGT with an analysis of drug court admissions and releases.
As shown in Exhibit 5-2, persons who have been admitted to and discharged from drug court
since 2002 were primarily white (67 percent) and male (57 percent). The significant number of
females admitted to the program, however (43 percent), raises immediate questions regarding the
extent to which ODC truly is diverting prison-bound offenders, since females represent less than
10 percent of all Oklahoma prison admissions.
The primary drugs being abused by ODC participants are methamphetamine, alcohol and
marijuana. Tulsa and Oklahoma counties are the largest contributors to the program.
EXHIBIT 5-2
Characteristics of Persons Admitted to and Completing Drug Court
Fiscal 2002 to 2007
Attribute
Gender
Male
Female
Race
White
Black
Native American
Other
Average Age
Controlling Offense
Possession of CDS
DUI/APC
Distribution of CDS
Manufacture of Drugs
Burglary II
Other misc. crimes
Prior Arrests
None
One
Two or more

%
57%
43%
67%
15%
17%
1%
33 years
51%
21%
6%
4%
3%
15%
22%
18%
60%

Attribute
Prior Felony Convictions
None
One
Two or more
Drug Of Choice
Alcohol
Cannabis
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Other
Primary County
Tulsa Drug
Tulsa DUI
Oklahoma
Pontotoc
Creek
Wagoner
Rogers
Seminole

%
37%
22%
41%
27%
20%
32%
14%
7%
15%
9%
15%
8%
5%
5%
4%
4%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

The most common charges offenders faced at the time of screening for ODC were possession of a
controlled substance (51 percent) and DUI (21 percent). Seventy-eight percent of those admitted
to the program had prior arrests; 63 percent had prior felony convictions. The share of program
participants with prior felony convictions has increased steadily since 2002 (Exhibit 5-3).

Page 5-6

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-3
Percent of Drug Court Admissions with a Prior Felony Conviction
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

No Priors
46.4%
41.3%
28.8%
29.5%
28.6%
26.9%

1+ Priors
53.6%
58.7%
71.2%
70.5%
71.4%
73.1%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

These data provide strong evidence that ODC is actually diverting some persons from prison.
Exhibit 5-2 also shows, however, that a significant share of ODC participants had no prior arrests
before entering the program (22 percent for fiscal 2002 through 2007) or prior convictions (37
percent over the same time period). Forty-one percent of those admitted had two or more prior
felony convictions; it would be reasonable to assume that these people are likely candidates for
prison. On the other hand, participants with no prior felony convictions are unlikely to represent
true prison-bound offenders. MGT will use the proportions in Exhibit 5-2 to calculate the
program’s costs and benefits of the program.
The data also reflect considerable variation among counties (Exhibit 5-4). In some counties, all
or most of those admitted to ODC had at least one prior felony conviction (Caddo, Carter/Love,
Oklahoma, Payne and Washington) while others had no participants with prior felony convictions
(Comanche and Cotton) or very few (Okfuskee, Creek and Okmulgee). In general, then, some
courts are clearly succeeding in targeting prison-bound persons, while others are not.

Page 5-7

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-4
No Prior Felony Conviction by County,
Fiscal 2007
Court
Beckham County
Bryan County
Caddo County
Carter/Love Counties
Cherokee County
Cleveland County
Comanche/Cotton Counties
Craig County
Creek County
Delaware County
Garfield County
Garvin/McClain Counties
Grady County
Hughes County
Jackson/Greer/Harmon/Kiowa/Tillman Counties
Johnston/Marshall/Murray Counties
Kay County
LeFlore/Haskell/Latimer Counties
Lincoln County
Logan County
Mayes County
McCurtain County
McIntosh County
Muskogee County
Okfuskee County
Oklahoma County
Okmulgee County
Ottawa County
Payne County
Pittsburg County
Pontotoc County
Pottawatomie County
Rogers County
Seminole County
Sequoyah County
Stephens/Jefferson Counties
Tulsa Drug
Tulsa DUI
Wagoner County
Washington County
Washita/Custer Counties
Statewide

No Priors
3
17
0
0
19
20
18
4
66
7
17
2
0
9
18
11
4
7
0
3
4
29
5
1
16
2
10
14
2
19
18
9
20
25
6
6
43
30
21
1
13
519

% of Total
14%
37%
0%
0%
45%
43%
100%
31%
71%
30%
55%
9%
0%
60%
55%
33%
31%
15%
0%
10%
29%
60%
50%
3%
73%
1%
67%
42%
7%
38%
18%
43%
37%
45%
13%
25%
15%
45%
33%
3%
52%
27%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

Page 5-8

Community Programs

Success Factors
As noted above, 58 percent of participants who have passed through the drug courts did so
successfully. Upon completion, their original charges are dismissed and they have no recorded
felony conviction Persons who fail to complete the program, however, must serve their deferred
prison terms, which can be lengthy.
How do program successes and failures differ? It is clear that those who succeed have improved
their lives significantly. Successful graduates show an 86 percent decrease in unemployment, a 33
percent decrease in the lack of a high school diploma, a 76 percent increase in income and a 21
percent increase in participants who had children living with them.
But the main factor distinguishing successful from unsuccessful cases is employment. While 29
percent of the successful cases were unemployed at the time of completion, 46 percent of the
unsuccessful cases were unemployed.
Those who fail the program are most likely to be terminated for noncompliance with the
program’s rules rather than a new crime (Exhibit 5-5). Those dropped from the program in fiscal
2007 had an average of 4.6 violations, with the primary reasons being positive drug tests or
tardiness.
EXHIBIT 5-5
Reasons for Terminations in Fiscal 2007
Termination Reason
Total
New Crime
Program Failure
AWOL
Detailed Reasons for Program Failure
Average number of violations
Positive Drug Test
Late for Drug Test
Missed or Late for Treatment

%
34%
61%
5%
4.6 per person
25%
17%
15%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

Absconders are not counted in terminations, as the case remains open until the individual is
returned to court on a warrant for a final disposition. As noted above, depending on the
circumstances the drug court team may decide to reinstate the participant in the program.

Page 5-9

Community Programs

Effect on Prison Admissions
One of the major objectives of the ODC program is to divert offenders from prison. Any
evaluation of the program, then, must ask whether participants would otherwise have served
prison terms.
We cannot definitively establish what share of participants represents prison diversions. We can,
however, examine prison admissions from before and after the 2002 initiation of the program to
see if any significant shifts have occurred.
Exhibit 5-6 summarizes admission trends for the four major dispositions Oklahoma provides for
persons convicted of felony crimes—probation, prison, community sentencing and the drug
courts. (It is important to include community sentencing because it also provides an alternative to
prison, and predates the ODC initiative.)
The exhibit shows that the number of persons admitted to prison has not decreased since 1995.
The only positive sign has been relative stability in prison admissions from 2004 to 2006. As will
be noted later in this report, however, the first six months of 2007 saw a new surge in prison
admissions.
EXHIBIT 5-6
Admissions to Probation, Prison, Community Sentencing and Drug Courts
1990-2006
25000

20000

Admissions

15000

10000

5000

0
CY
1990

CY
1991

CY
1992

CY
1993

CY
1994

Probation

CY
1995

CY
1996

CY
1997

CY
1998

Community Sentencing

CY
1999

CY
2000

Drug Courts

CY
2001

CY
2002
Prisons

CY
2003

CY
2004

CY
2005

CY
2006

Totals

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Page 5-10

Community Programs

Note also that the advent of community sentencing had little if any impact on prison admissions,
but seems to have reduced the number of persons placed on probation. Generally, the number of
probation admissions declined slightly as community sentences increased.
MGT also examined trends in the most common specific crimes committed by people entering
ODC (Exhibit 5-7). Prison admissions for these five core “drug court crimes”—burglary II, DUI,
drug possession, distributing controlled substances and drug trafficking—have shown no
significant or sustained reduction or stabilization since the program began.
EXHIBIT 5-7
Prison Admissions by Drug Court and Other Offenses, Fiscal 1995-2007
10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
FY 1995

FY 1996

FY 1997

FY 1998

FY 1999

FY 2000

FY 2001

Drug Court

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

Total

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center and MGT of America.

Exhibit 5-8 examines admissions for each of the major drug court crime categories and shows
significant reductions in prison admissions only for the crimes of DUI and distribution of a
controlled substance.

Page 5-11

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-8
Prison Admissions by Drug Court and Other Offenses Fiscal 1995 to 2007
1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
FY
1995

FY
1996

FY
1997

Burglary II

FY
1998

FY
1999

FY
2000

FY
2001

FY
2002

Alcohol Related (includes DUI)

FY
2003

FY
2004

FY
2005

Poss./Obtain. Drugs

FY
2006

FY
2007

Distributing CDS

Drug Trafficking

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center and MGT of America.

Exhibit 5-9 examines changes in the prison population of persons convicted for the drug court
crime categories in relation to the overall prison population. There is no significant change in the
rate of increase in the total population. Again, the population attributable to the offenses of
distributing controlled substances and DUI have declined in the last few years, but these declines
were neutralized by increases in the other crime categories.

Page 5-12

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-9
Prison Populations, 1995-2006
4,500

30,000

4,000
25,000
3,500

3,000

20,000
Alcohol Related (includes DUI)

2,500

Poss./Obtain. Drugs
15,000

Distributing CDS
Drug Trafficking

2,000

Total Prison Population
1,500

10,000

1,000
5,000
500

0

0
CY
1995

CY
1996

CY
1997

CY
1998

CY
1999

CY
2000

CY
2001

CY
2002

CY
2003

CY
2004

CY
2005

CY
2006

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center and MGT of America.

MGT also examined the number of arrests made for these crimes, under the theory that a surge in
law enforcement activities targeting these crimes may be producing a surge in persons being
processed by the courts. Exhibit 5-10, however, shows that arrests for drugs and DUI have
declined since 2002. Arrests for all other crimes increased sharply until 2005, when a similar
decline occurred. In all, then, it does not appear that any surge in arrests for ODC-related crimes
occurred that would suggest that prison admissions would be even higher in ODC’s absence.

Page 5-13

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-10
Total Arrests, Calendar 2000 – 2006
106,000

25000

104,000
20000

100,000

98,000
10000

96,000
5000
94,000

Burglary

Drug abuse violations

Driving Under Influence

7

6

5

4

3

92,000
2

0

Other Arrests

Sources: Criminal Justice Resource Center and MGT of America.

CJRC, as a support arm of the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission, reports each year on the
number and types of court dispositions by year and offense group. The most recent report covers
the years of 2000 through 2004. CJRC reports fairly sharp increases in overall criminal
dispositions in 2003 and 2004 (Exhibit 5-11). Probation dispositions increased the most, and
seem to have risen at the same pace as new admissions for the drug court crimes. Since drug court
cases involve delayed sentencing, however, participants are not formally convicted and thus are
not part of the CJRC database. Some thousands of dispositions are pending. If an ODC
participant fails the program, they are likely to receive a prison term, but if they succeed, they
will not show up as a conviction in the database.

Page 5-14

Other Crimes

15000

1

Selected Crimes

102,000

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-11
All Convictions by Sentence Type 2000-2004
25,000
Since 2002, the number of felony offenders has increased 18.8%. The number of offenders receiving a
prison sentence has remained stable since 2002, but the proportion of offenders receiving a prison sentence
has decreased from 43% to 36%.

20,093

20,000
18,138

18,472

18,395

9,017

15,000

10,000

21,851

8,468

8,818

(47%)

(48%)

2,574

2,663

(14%)

(14%)

7,096

6,991

7,752

10,707
(49%)

(45%)

(42%)

2,814

3,288

3,318

(15%)

(16%)

(15%)

7,829

7,788

7,826

(43%)

(39%)

2002

2003

5,000
(39%)

(38%)

2000

2001

(36%)

Excludes delayed sentences.
Previous years data are updated as new cases are received.
See Appendix B-4, for the date table.

Prison Term

Jail Term

2004

Probation Sentence

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

In comparison, Exhibit 5-12, indicates that the number of felony offenders convicted of drug
possession, drug distribution, or DUI has increased 29.1 percent since 2000. At the same time the
number of offenders convicted of these offenses who received a prison sentence has increased
15.4 percent.

Page 5-15

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-12
Drug Possession/Drug Distribution/DUI Convictions by Sentence Type,
2000-2004
12,000
The num ber of felony offenders convicted of drug possession, drug distribution, or DUI has
increased 29.1% since 2000. The num ber of felony substance abuse offenders who received a
prison sentence increased by 164 in the past year, an increase of 5.4%. The use of probation
sentences for these felony offenders has increased 17.5% over the past year.

10,000

9,827

8,897
8,175

8,000

8,118

7,610

5,098
4,337

6,000

3,602

4,094

3,782

(50%)

(47%)

(52%)

(49%)

(47%)

4,000

1,518

1,523

(15%)

(17%)

(15%)

2,975

3,085

3,042

3,206

(36%)

(38%)

(34%)

(33%)

2001

2002

2003

2004

960

1,106

(13%)

(14%)

3,048
(40%)

2000

2,000

1,251

Excludes delayed sentences.
Previous years data are updated as new cases are received.
See Appendix B-4, for the date table.

Prison Term

Jail Term

Probation Sentence

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Savings Produced by Drug Courts
Drug courts can generate savings—or more accurately, reduce state expenditures—by diverting
persons from incarceration. Additional savings result if persons completing the drug court
program have lower recidivism rates.
MHSAS has estimated, based on an assumption of 4,026 persons admitted to the drug court
program annually, that ODC will divert the expenditure by the state of about $263 million over
four years.7 The estimate utilized a cost model that tracked a sample of drug court admissions
over a four-year period, and the following key assumptions:


all drug court admissions would have been incarcerated with an average
sentence of 64 months, and served 39 percent of their sentences (25 months) in
a DOC facility if the drug court program had not existed; and



they assume that only a very small share of participants would fail the
program. Failures would have been re-incarcerated with an average sentence
of 77 months, and would have served 39 percent of that term (or 30 months).

7

Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Drug Court Charts. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, August 2007, page 1.

Page 5-16

Community Programs

MGT found that MHSAS’ estimate of savings is excessively high and requires adjustment for the
following reasons.


Averted Versus Actual Cost Savings: as noted above, neither prison
admissions nor the total prison population have declined since the drug courts
were initiated in 2002. Of the offenses targeted by the drug courts, admissions
for DUI and distribution of controlled substances declined, but admissions for
burglary II, drug possession and drug trafficking rose. In all, prison admissions
for these crimes have risen by 6 percent since 2002, matching the percent
increase in total prison admissions.
Similarly, and more importantly, the number of prisoners housed in state
prison for these crimes has increased by almost 1,000, reflecting a growth rate
of 11 percent, higher than the 9 percent overall growth rate for the prison
population.
In summary, ODC has not reduced prison admissions or the prison population
for the drug offenses it targets. For both measures, the growth rate for these
crimes either paced or exceeded that for other crimes.



Drug Court Failures: a second problem with the MHSAS savings estimate is
its assumption that the vast majority of participants would complete the
program and would not recidivate. But this assumption is easily proven
invalid.
MHSAS drug court discharge data indicated that from 37 to 41 percent of
those admitted to the drug court are terminated from the program. Even more
problematic is the projection of substantial prison terms for program failures
(30 months of incarceration to be followed by a period of parole supervision).



Admissions with No Prior Arrests or Convictions: As noted above, even
though there has been a considerable increase in the share of persons admitted
to ODC that have prior felony convictions, a sizeable number remain that do
not have a previous criminal record. This is no doubt the result of different
philosophies among the district attorneys concerning who should be admitted.
MHSAS’ model, however, assumes that all of these offenders would have
received prison sentences in the absence of drug court.

MGT Revised Model
Because of these issues, MGT constructed an alternative model and savings estimate. Such a
model attempts to estimate the total system costs associated with each admission. Naturally, we
cannot fully track and thus analyze drug court admissions since the program has been operational
for only a relatively short period of time. Typical analysis of this type requires a cohort of
admission and releases over a 3 -4 period. But it is possible to begin seeing how the drug courts
may be affecting criminal justice costs, in the short term and into the future. More importantly,
the analysis will show the relevant benchmarks the drug courts must meet to be cost-effective.

Page 5-17

Community Programs

Key Assumptions and Parameters
Any simulation must be based on a number of key assumptions. In this case, a key MGT
assumption concerns the extent to which participants have been diverted from the prison system.
As suggested by the data on prison admissions and daily prison population in Exhibits 5-7 and
5-9, it is not clear that the drug courts actually divert a large proportion of people from prison,
even though the plea agreement requires a prison sentence. For this reason MGT employs two
assumptions: one that assumes 75 percent of participants are diverted from prison diversion and
another that assumes only a 25 percent diversion. We feel the 75 percent assumption is the most
optimistic assumption one could make, given the prison admission trends noted above.
For success rates, MGT uses both the previously reported 58 percent and 67 percent success rates
to show their relative effects on costs. We also assume about 1,900 drug court admissions per
year, reflecting the program’s current and expected intake capacity for the next few years.
Exhibit 5-13 estimates the cost of the ODC program, based on a 58 percent success rate. The
estimate takes into account the long-term costs of persons who serve lengthy prison terms after
failing treatment. The total cost for each year’s worth of admissions (1,900) is estimated at about
$50.4 million. ODC program costs represented only $14 million of that amount. This estimate is
far higher than the MHSAS estimate due to the extremely high costs for program failures ($35
million). Program failure costs include the initial cost of imprisonment for program failures
($32.3 million) plus subsequent probation and imprisonment costs, following the release of these
offenders from their initial term of incarceration.
EXHIBIT 5-13
Costs of Oklahoma Drug Courts: 58 Percent Success Rate
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% that Fail/Succeed
Number of Failures
Time in program
ODC Cost Per Month
ODC Program Cost
Average Prison Term
% Time Served
Cost Per Year Served
Total Prison Costs
Probation Supervision Time
Probation Costs Per Month
Total Probation Costs
Re-imprisonment Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Admission

Failure
1,900
42%
798
13 mos
$417
$4,322,500
74 mos
39%
$16,824
$32,288,453
13 mos
$60.38
$626,382
$2,174,991
$39,412,326

Success
58%
1,102
21 mos
$417
$9,642,500
0
0
0
0
20 mos
$60.38
$1,330,775
$0
$10,973,275

Total Costs

$13,965,000

$32,288,453

$1,957,157
$2,174, 991
$50,385,601
$26,519

Source: MGT of America.

Page 5-18

Community Programs

Exhibit 5-14 provides the same analysis but assumes a higher success rate of 67 percent, based
on persons who entered and completed the program from 2001 to 2004. As the success rate
increases, ODC costs drop significantly, from $50.4 million ($26,519 per participant) to $43.6
million ($22,970 per participant).
EXHIBIT 5-14
Costs of Oklahoma Drug Courts: 67 Percent Success Rate
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% that Fail/Succeed
Number of Failures
Time in program/prison
ODC Cost Per Month
Drug Court Program Cost
Prison Term
% Time Served
Cost Per Year Served
Total Prison Costs
Probation Supervision
Probation Costs Per Month
Total Probation Costs
Re-imprisonment Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Drug Court Admission

Failure
1,900
33%
627
13
$417
$3,396,250
74 mos
39%
$16,824
$25,369,498
13 mos
$60.38
$492,157
$1,708,922
$30,966,828

Success
67%
1,273
21
$417
$11,138,750
0 mos
0
0
0
20 mos
$60.38
$1,537,275
$0
$12,676,025

Total Costs

$14,535,000

$25,369,498

$2,029,432
$1,708,922
$43,642,852
$22,970

Source: MGT of America.

Exhibits 5-15 and 5-16 show cost models based on the two different assumptions for the number
of diverted prison admissions (75 percent and 25 percent). Exhibit 5-15 assumes that ODC
diverts 75 percent of the 1,900 offenders from prison and that 58 percent of those complete the
program. In this scenario, had these offenders instead been sent to prison, the state would have
incurred $57.1 million, as shown in Exhibit 5-15 vs. the $50.4 million in cost associated with
sending the same cohort of offenders through the ODC program, as shown in Exhibit 5-13, is
cost-effective ($49.9 million versus $57.1 million per 1,900 offenders).

Page 5-19

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-15
Avoided Prison Costs with 75 Percent Diversion
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% Prison Bound
Number Admitted
% Recidivating
Number Recidivated
Initial Prison Sentence
% Time Served
Costs Per Year Served
Initial Imprisonment Costs
Parole Supervision Time
Parole Costs Per Month
Parole Supervision Costs
Re-incarceration Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Prison Admission

Failure

28%
399
64
39%
$16,824
$13,962,574
39
$60.38
$940,537
$3,909,521
$18,812,632

Success
1,900
75%
1,425
72%
1,026
64
39%
$16,824
$35,903,762
39
$60.38
$2,418,523.32
$0
$38,322,285

Total Costs

$49,866,336

$3,359,060
$3,909,521
$57,134,917
$30,074

Source: MGT of America.

As Exhibit 5-16 shows, as the number of offenders diverted from prison falls to 25 percent,
averted prison costs fall to $19 million. This level of spending is far below the $50.4 million of
the ODC program, assuming a 58 percent success rate becomes ineffective in avoiding prison
costs ($19 million versus $49.9 million). Thus, to ensure ODC is cost-effective, DOC must ensure
that the diversion rate is 75 percent; the failure rate is no more than 40 percent; and the costs of
ODC program failures in terms of long prison stays are reduced.

Page 5-20

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-16
Averted Prison Costs with 25 Percent Diversion
Cost Factor
Total Admissions
% Prison Bound
Number Admitted
% Recidivating
Number Recidivated
Initial Prison Sentence
% Time Served
Costs Per Year Served
Initial Imprisonment Costs
Parole Supervision Time
Parole Costs Per Month
Parole Supervision Costs
Recidivist Costs
Total Costs
Costs Per Prison Admission

Failure

28%
133
64
39%
$16,824
$4,654,191
39
$60.38
$313,512
$1,303,174

Success
1,900
25%
475
72%
342
64
39%
$16,824
$11,967,921
39
$60.38
$806,174
0

$6,270,877

$12,774,095

Total Costs

$16,622,112

$1,119,687
$1,303,174
$19,044,972
$10,024

Source: MGT of America.

Key Observations
The following section identifies some key observations regarding the status of drug courts at this
time.


Oklahoma’s drug courts are at least as effective as similar programs around
the country, with a success rate of approximately 60 percent, which compares
favorably with 27 to 66 percent rates nationwide.8



The use of independent contracted assessors in the largest counties helps
guarantee objectivity, quality and consistency in intake and treatment
decisions.



District attorneys largely control ODC intake. While a committee makes
program recommendations, the prosecutor holds the ultimate authority to
decide whether to delay sentencing.



Nearly 75 percent of ODC admissions currently have at least one prior felony
conviction and many more have two or more. This suggests that the ODCs are
targeting offenders most likely to be prison-bound.9

8

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Adult Drug Courts, Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed
Results for Other Outcomes. Washington, D.C., February 2005, Overview, page 1.
9
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Drug Court Charts. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, August 2007, page 4.

Page 5-21

Community Programs



Neither the number of prison admissions nor the daily prison population have
declined, even though the ODCs were intended to have this effect.



Program participants’ deferred prison sentences are quite long—longer than
prison sentences given for similar offenses committed by offenders who do
not participate in ODC.



Community sentencing and ODC target the same persons; many drug court
participants would have been sentenced to probation had the program not
existed. This explains, in part, the decline in probation admissions and
population.



The total cost of ODC is significantly higher than the MHSAS’ estimate due
to the high failure rate (42 percent) and the high cost associated with lengthy
prison terms for program failures.



Most program failures are for multiple violations of program rules rather than
new criminal charges.

Projected Need for Drug Court Slots
One of the issues that need to be assessed on an annual basis is the number of drug court slots that
are needed to meet the demand for the commitments to the program. This can be easily estimated
by using the annual number of admissions to drugs court per year (approximately 2,000 in
FY2007) and the current length of stay (17 months) for all admissions and releases. Using the
formula of admissions x length of stay (in months) divided by 12 months produces an average
daily population of drug court participants of 2,833 as shown below:
(2,000 admissions x 17 months length of stay) / 12 months = 2,833 daily population.
The calculation of the number of necessary slots would be lower if the drug court program were
in fact more restrictive, as suggested by this assessment, in whom they admitted to the program.
For example, only accepting people with at least one prior felony arrest would reduce the
admissions by 37 percent from 2,000 to 1,260 and thus lower the estimated daily population from
2,833 to 1,785. On the other hand increasing the success rate would increase the length of stay in
the program as fewer people would fail and terminate early. Assuming the success rate went from
58 percent to 65 percent, the average length of the offenders in the program would increase by
about two months thus increasing the daily population from 2,833 to 3,200.
For all of these reasons it is essential that the number of program slots funded by the legislature
should be reassessed on an annual basis. Based on data available from 2007 it would appear that
the current need is in the area of 3,000 funded program slots, not the current 4,000 funded slots.
It would be necessary to validate on the calculation on a regular basis to determine the
participation levels and vacancy rates are by each individual county. This process, if adopted,
would insure that any the necessary funds are appropriated to MHSAS for this program on an
annual basis.

Page 5-22

Community Programs

Summary of Recommendations
Oklahoma’s drug courts have a high degree of support and credibility. They are well conceived
and reflect results that are as good as the national average, and may exceed it in certain instances.
In general, alternatives to incarceration have demonstrated positive impacts on recidivism. The
next generation of drug courts across the nation is increasing its use of research and locally
available data to maker better decisions about who should participate and how much support and
supervision they should receive. In other words, they are fine-tuning their ability to match
offenders to the appropriate court, treatment and supervision strategies. Oklahoma is ready for
this next level.
At present, the evidence suggests that ODC is not diverting a large number of prison-bound
individuals to community treatment and supervision. Furthermore, high failure rates suggest that
the ODCs are not producing significant savings. This does not mean that drug courts are not
worth the investment, but rather that important changes are needed to make them more costeffective.
Recommendation 5-1. DOC and other independent researchers should be given
access to the MHSAS database for evaluation purposes. At present, no other state
agency has access to the MHSAS database. DOC should have complete data on
probationers who are also assigned to a drug court. Any future, independent assessments,
moreover, should be conducted by allowing researchers to access the data files
independently.
Recommendation 5-2. MHSAS in conjunction with the DOC should perform a risk
assessment to determine the most effective level of treatment and supervision for drug
court participants.
According to research by Festinger and Marlowe, drug courts are
most effective with clients who are more criminally involved and have prior offense and
arrest histories .10 Some data suggest that ODCs, predictably, have better outcomes with
first offenders.. For example, in Tulsa County, the largest program in the state, 30 percent
of participants are first offenders, as are 40 percent of successful graduates.11
Interestingly, many people reported that in more rural counties, an even larger portion of
participants are first offenders.
Since drug courts in Oklahoma are intend to provide an alternative to prison, and since
data indicate they are slightly less effective with that population than with first offenders,
further analysis of the needs of prison-bound offenders and the nature of the services they
need to be provided in order to succeed should be conducted.
Recommendation 5-3. Prison sentences for those who fail the program should more
closely mirror sentences given to other persons with similar criminal histories. There is
no legal reason to give harsher punishments to prisoners who have tried to change their
lives and failed than to persons who did not even try to change. In the current situation,
an individual who agrees to participate in a drug court program receives a deferred prison
sentence that often far exceeds those given to persons who go directly to prison. While
10

Festinger, David. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. How Do Drug Courts Work and for
Whom? Presentation at Congress on Problems in Drug Dependence, Quebec City, Quebec. June 2007.
11
Tulsa County MHSAS Annual Report, 2006, page 2.

Page 5-23

Community Programs

this disparity may provide a powerful incentive to succeed in the program, it seems to be
an unfair consequence of trying and failing.
MGT recommends that drug court participants who fail the program should receive
prison sentences like those given to other offenders with similar criminal histories. This
could be accomplished by capping sentences in general, or by using other data in
sentencing decisions. MGT also recommends that the legislature consider capping these
prison sentences at five years.
Recommendation 5-4. DOC should conduct research to identify the type of offender
and offense most appropriate for community sentencing or drug courts. At present,
both community sentencing and drug courts target the same moderate-level, prison-bound
offenders.12 There is no objective criteria for determining which program is most
appropriate for an offender. The lack of standardized criteria for participation prevents
the courts from making the best use of the various interventions available. MHSAS and
DOC should jointly develop protocols for handling various types of offenders and
appropriate levels of intervention.
Recommendation 5-5. DOC should use analyses of treatment outcomes to create an
assessment process to address offenders’ clinical and rehabilitative needs. Current
research indicates that drug courts have the greatest impact on certain types of offenders.
For instance, Festinger and Marlowe report that the intensive supervision and
intervention provided by drug courts is more effective with higher-risk participants who
have antisocial personality disorder or prior substance abuse histories than with
probationers without such conditions.13. The criminal justice system’s intake, eligibility
and treatment matching processes should incorporate this knowledge in legal and clinical
decisions made to match participants with appropriate interventions; such studies also
should inform future enhancements to and expansions of treatment options.
Recommendation 5-6. The legislature should modify the statute to allow greater use of
judicial review to balance the influence of district attorneys in ODC admissions. Given
the team orientation of drug court members, and their joint responsibility for decisionmaking for all aspects of the program, it is appropriate to allow them to seek other means
for admission to ODC that do not require a district attorney’s approval. The best way to
ensure another path for admission is greater use of judicial review, specifically by
allowing DOC staff to refer cases back to the sentencing judge after a short period of
imprisonment.
Recommendation 5-7. All drug court participants should have at least one prior felony
conviction. This would help to ensure that the drug courts are in fact diverting persons
from prison. It may be beneficial from a public policy standpoint to admit first time
offenders to this particular program, but the budgetary premise associated with the
program is that it is designed and intended to reduce prison commitments. That particular
objective cannot be achieved if participants to the programs were not prison bound
offenders in the first place.
12

Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Community Sentencing Division. Partnerships in Corrections, Community
Sentencing Act Annual Report 2006. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, page 5.
13
Festinger, David. Presentation at Congress on Problems in Drug Dependence, Quebec City, Quebec. June 2007.

Page 5-24

Community Programs

Recommendation 5-8. Improve the tracking and reporting of absconders from the ODC
program as maintained by MHSAS and the DOC. Other than Oklahoma County,
counties were not able to report their rate of absconders. It appears that, unless they
commit a new and serious offense, most are readmitted to the program, with some
sanction for their actions.
Recommendation 5-9. In order to ensure only the necessary level of funding be
appropriated to MHSAS for this program, it is essential that the number of program
slots funded by the legislature should be reassessed on an annual basis. Based on data
available from 2007 it would appear that the current need is in the area of 3,000 funded
program slots, not the current 4,000 funded slots. It would be necessary to validate on
the calculation on a regular basis to determine the participation levels and vacancy rates
are by each individual county. This process, if adopted, would insure that only the
necessary level of funding will be appropriated to MHSAS for this program on an annual
basis.

Page 5-25

Community Programs

Community Sentencing
Background
The Community Sentencing Act (Title 22, Section 988 of Oklahoma’s Criminal Procedures) was
designed to provide a community sanction including deferred or suspended sentences for eligible
felony offenders.
Offenders eligible for the program are those who have been convicted or who have pled guilty to
a felony offense, and are found to be in the moderate range of risk as determined by the Level of
Service Inventory assessment. Those convicted or pleading guilty to “85%” felonies are excluded
from participation.
As of November 1, 2007, Oklahoma had 3,056 offenders on active community sentencing status.
Offenders receiving a community sentence in fiscal 2006 included:


Drug offenders 54%



DUI

13%



Property

21%



Assault

6%



Other offenses

6%

Note that 67 percent of these persons (drug and DUI offenders) also fall in the basic target
population for the drug court program.
Funding for the sentencing alternatives authorized under the Community Sentencing Act,
including treatment programs, is provided within DOC’s budget and passed through grants to
local community sentencing councils. As stated in Title 22, the program is a partnership between
state and local governments in which the local councils plan and facilitate the implementation of
local sentencing options in lieu of prison. This concept has proven extremely effective in other
jurisdictions.
Program funding for fiscal 2008 is $10 million, with $1.2 million for the Community Service
Sentencing Program (CSSP), which reimburses counties for the housing of the targeted offenders
in jail, and $8.8 million for the DOC Community Sentencing Division’s programs and grants
which provide funding for treatment and intervention programs for the targeted population. In
fiscal 2007, by contrast, total funding was $11.5 million with $8.9 million for administration and
grants and an additional $2.6 million for CSSP.
The fiscal 2007 CSSP reimbursement for jail use by community sentencing that had been
invoiced by the participating counties as of November 6, 2007, was $1,350,360. This figure does
not include the cost of health care services for this population. State law stipulates that DOC will
reimburse counties for all emergency health care costs for inmates housed under the CSSP. This
may increase the net cost to the state of the program.

Page 5-26

Community Programs

A total of 43 counties participate in this program, with Texas and Pittsburg counties representing
19 percent of all reimbursements. On the low end, 14 counties received reimbursements of less
than $5,000 in fiscal 2007, and four of those received less than $1,000.
The $1,350,000 would cover a total of 67,500 bed days representing a diverted population of 185
prisoners, assuming the cost of emergency health care was negligible. If one assumes that all the
offenders sentenced under the provisions of this program were diverted from prison, the program
would be a bargain to the state. As described below, however, under the present participation
criteria, it is impossible to determine how many persons sentenced under the Community
Sentencing Act would have been committed to prison if the program did not exist.
Under the CSSP option of the community sentencing program, counties receive reimbursements
of $20 per day from DOC for each offender who is sentenced to county jail in lieu of prison. Title
22 permits reimbursement for first- or second-time nonviolent offenders who would normally be
incarcerated in a state institution. In reviewing the statutory authority and practices associated
with this aspect of the program, it is unclear how offenders sentenced to jail under this act can be
differentiated from those who would normally be sentenced to the county jail. Furthermore, it is
unclear how the state can receive any assurance that those sentenced and paid for under this
portion of the act are in fact those who would be normally sentenced to a state institution.
DOC reports indicate that in fiscal 2006, 1,463 offenders were sentenced under the provisions of
the Community Sentencing Act. These offenders had the following distribution of prior
convictions:


55 percent had no prior convictions;



21 percent had one prior conviction;



11 percent had two prior convictions; and



13 percent had three prior convictions.

The vast majority of the offenders with no prior convictions, as well as many of those with one
prior conviction, probably would not have received a prison sentence in most Oklahoma
jurisdictions, given current sentencing patterns. To ensure that state expenditures for this program
achieve the fundamental purpose of prison diversion, it is essential that the program’s eligibility
standards be redefined in the act.
One option that the legislature should consider is to modify the grant funding formula of the
program to primarily, but not solely focus on reducing the prison commitment levels at the county
level. Some states who have adopted community corrections acts, have instituted practices that
require participating counties to provide historical analysis of their prison commitment
populations and to identify the means that they are going use with their grant dollars to reduce the
prison commitment rate for selected populations or offense categories. On an annual basis, the
counties, through the coordinating councils would review how they have decreased prison
commitments for the targeted population, and request additional funding based on this analysis.
This would ensure that at some of the grant funding would be directly tied to the main objective
of the program, a reduction in prison commitments of non-violent, low risk offenders.

Page 5-27

Community Programs

The following services are provided for eligible offenders depending on need, as determined by
the sentencing court:







community service;
substance abuse treatment;
probation supervision;
education and literacy programs;
employment and job skills development; and
county jail or other restrictive housing.

Offenders ordered to serve a community sentence that includes community supervision are
required to pay a supervision fee not to exceed $40 per month.
DOC has reported significant positive results from the program. Documents reviewed indicated
that of 10,335 offenders participating in the program since its inception, only 21 percent failed
and were subsequently sentenced to prison. In formal recidivism studies of offenders who
completed the program before July 2003, only 12 percent had been recommitted to DOC as of
June 2006. These time periods account for those who have been out of the program for a period
of three years, the typical time period used to measure recidivism. The figures do not account for
those who may have been committed to other jurisdictions including jail, but still represent a
significant number compared to other recidivism studies.
The unanswered question here, however, is whether the offenders targeted by this program would
have succeeded at a similar rate without participating in it, particularly given the high number of
them without extensive prior histories of criminal behavior. DOC should conduct research in this
area, including examination of a comparison group of non-participants with similar demographics
and criminal histories.
The Community Sentencing Act specifies that DOC’s Community Sentencing Division is to
administer the statewide community sentencing system. The division administers the provisions
of the act, reviews and authorizes grant funding for the programs, assesses local program criteria
and serves as the statewide clearinghouse and facilitator for the program.
DOC reports that administrative costs accounted for about 4 percent of total program
expenditures in fiscal 2006. This is relatively low, given the level of total funding and
expenditures. Even so, unless program participation grows and the eligibility criteria are to
increase participation, it is difficult to justify Community Sentencing as a separate division within
DOC.
DOC should consider merging the division and its staff and responsibilities with its Community
Services Division, and recreating its structure on a similar basis organizational level and reporting
structure as the present parole and probation districts. Some savings would arise from the
elimination of duplicated administrative functions, but few if any staff savings would be gained,
since the program’s administration must be sustained.
Title 22, Section 988.14 required the creation of the Community Sentencing Division within
DOC. At minimum, the legislature should eliminate this provision and leave the flexibility of
making this decision on the organization structure with the Director of the DOC.
Page 5-28

Community Programs

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 5-10. The legislature should redefine the target population for
community sentencing to explicitly differentiate the population from those targeted by
drug courts, mental health courts, etc.
Recommendation 5-11. DOC should complete a long-term study of community
sentencing program participants and the program’s recidivism rates to ensure that it is
reducing prison commitments in a manner contemplated by the provisions of the act.
Recommendation 5-12. The legislature should consider expanding the program
eligibility that is contained in the statute to include those who are assessed as high risk
on the LSI, but meet all other established criteria.
Recommendation 5-13. The legislature should eliminate funding for the county jail
reimbursement portion of the program, absent some clear redefinition of eligibility that
differentiates the population covered by this provision from those who would normally
be sentenced to jail.
Recommendation 5-14. The legislature should eliminate the restriction that those
offenders convicted of “85%” offenses be automatically excluded from participation in
the program. It is consistent that certain categories of “85%” offenses are eligible, and
have been placed, on probation status but are not eligible for participation in the
community sentencing programs.
Recommendation 5-15. The legislature should eliminate the provision in the
authorizing statute that requires the program to be administered by a separate division
within DOC. This would permit DOC’s director to reorganize these functions if
warranted, based on available funding and program participation.

Page 5-29

Community Programs

Oklahoma Parole Board
Background
Article VI, Section 332 of the Oklahoma Constitution authorizes the Pardon and Parole Board, a
five-member, part-time body charged with making recommendations to the governor on
applications for the release from prison of convicted adult felons. The members of the board are
appointed, three by the governor, one by the chief justice of the State Supreme Court, and one by
the presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Board members are removable only for
cause in a manner provided by law.
The review of offenders for parole in Oklahoma is a complex process that involves two separate
agencies, the Department of Corrections and the Pardon and Parole Board, and the governor, who
has final review and approval on any releases. The board reviews information prepared by DOC
and additional information developed and prepared by the board’s hearing examiners and other
support staff. With this information, the board makes recommendations for prison releases via
various parole programs, commutations and pardons, as prescribed by the provisions of Title 57,
Section 332.
Oklahoma’s governor has the authority—unique among U.S. governors—to make the final
decision on any release. Title 57, Section 332 outlines the power of the governor in these matters:
The Governor shall have power to grant, after conviction, reprieves,
commutations, paroles and pardons for all offenses, except cases of impeachment,
upon such conditions and such restrictions and limitations as may be deemed
proper by the Governor, subject, however, to the regulations prescribed by law and
the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Title 57, Section 332.2 further prescribes that:
The Pardon and Parole Board, which shall meet only on the call of the Chairman,
is authorized, if and when an application made to the Governor for a reprieve,
commutation, parole, pardon, or other act of clemency is certified thereto by the
Governor, to examine into the merits of said application and make
recommendations to the Governor in relation thereto, said recommendation being
advisory to the Governor and not binding thereon.
Our survey of other state jurisdictions confirmed that Oklahoma is the only state whose governor
is directly responsible for the routine approval of all parole releases from the state correctional
system.
Title 57, Section 332.16 stipulates the time permitted under the statute for the governor to act on
the board’s parole recommendations: “No recommendation to the governor for parole shall
remain under consideration and in the possession of that office for a time longer than thirty (30)
days.”

Page 5-30

Community Programs

The Parole Process
The Pardon and Parole Board employs a full-time support staff, including hearing examiners, to
administer its daily operations. Staff investigators compile reports on each of parole candidate for
the board and the governor to use in making their decisions.
Board staff report that their recommendations and accompanying documents are not submitted to
the governor’s office until they, and DOC’s parole processing unit, have finished their reviews.
According to board employees, these initial reviews usually take about 60 to 90 days. After this
period, the case file goes to the governor’s office.
The entire process, then can require anywhere from 60 to 120 days, and in many instances takes
longer, depending on the circumstances of the recommendation and whether the board has
mandated stipulations (program or treatment requirements) that must be completed prior to
release..

Approval Rates
Significant fluctuations in parole approval rates are common (Exhibit 5-17). Over the last 16
years, effective grant rates, after the governor’s review, have ranged from 41 to 7.5 percent.
EXHIBIT 5-17
Effective Grant Rates
50%

 Effective G rant R ate = percentage of inm ates who
were eligible for parole/com m utation who were released
from prison.

Percent of Eligible Inmates Released

40.8%

40%

 The 18.9% rate of 2006 represents a 39% drop since
2003 and 54% drop since 1991.

37.7%
33.9%

31.2%

30.9%

30%

27.6%
25.2% 25.3%
21.7%

21.6%
18.2% 18.9%

20%
14.8%
13.0%

10%

8.0%

7.5%

0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ca le nda r Ye a r

Source: Criminal Justice Resource Center.

Page 5-31

Community Programs

The effective approval rate employed in the current population forecast is set at 18 percent, which
is quite low compared with those in other jurisdictions (Exhibit 5-18).
EXHIBIT 5-18
State Parole Rates
60%
50%

56%

55%

51%

40%
30%
20%

30%

30%

18%

10%
0%
Texas

Pennsylvania

Nevada

Michigan

Maryland

Oklahoma

Source: MGT of America.

Although factors such as differences in eligibility, good-time laws and statutory restrictions on
parole for certain crimes can render these types of comparisons inexact, they do provide some
indication of the relative approval rates of various state parole boards. It seems safe to say that the
involvement of Oklahoma’s governor contributes significantly to the state’s relatively low
approval rates. On the other hand, the approval recommendations of the Oklahoma board prior to
the governor’s final decision also are far below the approval rates of many other states (see
below).
In April 2007, the board implemented risk assessment guidelines to improve its decision-making.
The risk assessment guidelines place each offender into one of three categories: low, moderate or
high risk, based on a recidivism study conducted by Dr. James Austin and funded by the National
Institute of Corrections. Exhibit 5-19 summarizes the results of the risk assessment and parole
board recommendations since implementation of the risk assessment guidelines in April 2007.
With the implementation of these guidelines it is expected that the review process will be
improved and the offenders with a high potential to re-offend will be clearly identified.
As a result of this implementation several major trends have been identified and should be
emphasized.
First, while investigators recommend individuals for parole to the board in about 45 percent of the
cases they review, the board recommends parole at a consistently lower rate (about 30 to 35
percent).
In terms of risk level, about 75 percent of the cases heard are considered to be at low to moderate
risk of recidivism. This indicates that a significant proportion of the eligible parole population is
an acceptable risk for parole.

Page 5-32

Community Programs

Finally, both the investigators and the board clearly are following the results of the risk
assessment; the highest grant rates are associated with the lowest-risk group while the lowest
grant rates are associated with the highest-risk group.
EXHIBIT 5-19
Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board
Year-to-Date Parole Recommendations by Risk Assessment
April–October 2007
April
Total Regular Parole
Cases Considered
Investigators
Recommend Parole
Board Recommends
Parole

May

June

July

August

September

October

496

507

524

540

528

563

468

218
(44%)
153
(31%)

229
(45%)
174
(34%)

240
(46%)
183
(35%)

253
(47%)
188
(35%)

232
(44%)
170
(32%)

256
(45%)
198
(29%)

205
(44%)
153
(33%)

Investigators
Recommend Parole
Board Recommends
Parole

140
(28%)
91
(65%)
65
(46%)

115
(23%)
71
(62%)
50
(44%)

127
(24%)
78
(61%)
55
(43%)

138
(26%)
94
(68%)
63
(46%)

160
(30%)
90
(56%)
59
(37%)

164
(29%)
104
(63%)
76
(46%)

121
(26%)
79
(65%)
60
(50%)

Low Moderate Risk
Cases
Investigators
Recommend Parole
Board Recommends
Parole

207
(42%)
94
(45%)
63
(30%)

250
(49%)
121
(48%)
101
(40%)

241
(46%)
123
(51%)
91
(38%)

250
(46%)
116
(46%)
88
(35%)

240
(45%)
115
(48%)
85
(35%)

252
(45%)
118
(47%)
92
(37 %)

214
(46%)
94
(44%)
61
(29%)

Moderate High Risk
Cases
Investigators
Recommend Parole
Board Recommends
Parole

149
(30%)
33
(22%)
25
(17%)

142
(28%)
37
(26%)
23
(16%)

156
(30%)
39
(25%)
37
(24%)

152
(28%)
43
(28%)
37
(24%)

128
(24%)
27
(21%)
26
(20%)

147
(26%)
34
(23%)
30
(20%)

133
(28%)
32
(24%)
32
(24%)

Low-Risk Cases

Source: Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board and MGT of America.

While parole rates have varied considerably over time, and recently have been quite low, the
adoption of the risk guidelines ultimately may increase the recommended grant rates. If the grant
rates do increase, and the governor’s review of these decisions does not reverse them, average
lengths of stay and associated prison populations may decline.

Page 5-33

Community Programs

To illustrate the effects of parole decision-making on prison population growth, MGT prepared
two simulations in conjunction with CJRC, illustrating the effects of increases in the board’s rate
to 30 percent and 40 percent, respectively. These rates are quite reasonable: the board’s hearing
investigators recommend parole in about 45 percent of all cases in all risk categories, while the
board itself recommends parole in 30 to 35 percent of these cases. If the effective grant rate were
increased to 30 percent or 40 percent, the prison population would cease to grow and actually
decline, significantly reducing the need for additional bed capacity.
An increase in the grant rate also would produce an associated increase in the parole population
as more inmates are released to parole. Exhibit 5-20 shows the simulated effects on parole
admissions of the 30 percent and 40 percent assumptions. Roughly speaking, the higher grant
rates would increase parole admissions by about 100 percent and 140 percent, respectively. The
parole population would increase by the same amount unless there was an associated decline in
the period of parole supervision.
EXHIBIT 5-20
Impact on Prison Population:
Current and Alternative Parole Grant Rates

Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Current Projection
18% Grant Rate
24,561
25,416
26,316
27,035
27,459
27,831
28,065
28,235
28,537
28,760
28,872

40% Grant Rate

30%Grant Rate

24,545
25,272
25,506
23,994
23,320
23,139
23,168
23,350
23,434
23,664
23,937

24,591
25,375
25,743
24,896
24,222
24,244
24,396
24,356
24,584
24,777
24,954

Source: Criminal Justice Research Center.

Page 5-34

Community Programs

EXHIBIT 5-21
Impact on Parole Population:
Changes in Parole Releases Under Current and Alternative Parole Grant Rates
FY
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Current
1,088
1,083
1,150
1,278
1,258
1,359
1,370
1,340
1,365

40% Grant Rate
2,135
4,548
4,157
3,719
3,604
3,382
3,319
3,311
3,297

30% Grant Rate
1,936
3,525
3,376
3,067
2,994
2,940
2,855
2,819
2,788

Source: MGT of America and Criminal Justice Research Center.

Making grant rates more consistent with the risk assessment and recommendations of the hearing
investigators and/or parole board would have a considerable effect on DOC’s bed needs. Such
grant rates, however, would also require more probation and parole officers to supervise
significantly larger populations. For example, doubling the parole population under the 30 percent
grant rate would require an estimated 60 additional PPOs to manage the additional population
(based on caseload averages of 75 parolees).
Finally, it should be noted that the parole hearing process has some aspects that can either delay
the release of prisoners who have been granted parole or require certain prisoners to be paroled as
they near the end of their sentences.
A large share of the prisoners who are granted parole must wait for the governor’s review to be
completed, which in practice can delay the parole for several months despite the statutory
requirement that cases be acted upon in 30 days.
Also, board policy is to not hear the cases of certain inmates who are within three to six months
of their prison release dates. These are inmates who have very short sentences (with parole and
release dates very close to one another) or who have been previously rejected for parole and are
now nearing the end of their sentences. In either case, it still may be advisable to place these
individuals on some form of parole supervision, if they pose a significant risk to public safety.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 5-16. The legislature should initiate action remove statutory and
constitutional provisions requiring the governor to review and approve all paroles.
MGT recommends that the governor’s review be limited only to the most violent cases,
including murder and sexual assaults.
Recommendation 5-17. The members of the Pardon and Parole Board should be made
full-time appointees, so that they can dedicate the necessary time to review and act
upon the cases reviewed. This would be particularly desirable if their recommendations
Page 5-35

Community Programs

become the final decision. This combined with the ongoing use and evaluation of the
newly instituted parole risk assessment instrument would significantly improve the
capabilities of the board to render thoughtful and sound decisions that are in the best
interest of the public they serve.
Recommendation 5-18. The governor and the board should comply with all statutory
time limits for review and consideration of recommendations for parole.

Page 5-36

Community Programs

Division of Community Corrections
Background
DOC’s Division of Community Corrections is responsible for the supervision and oversight of the
department’s correctional centers and halfway houses, and for monitoring offenders placed under
the custody of the division’s parole and probation officers.
As of September 30, 2007, the division was responsible for supervising 27,415 probation
offenders, 3,637 parolees, 1,109 inmates housed in correctional center facilities and 1,307
inmates placed in contracted halfway houses. In addition, the division administers several
specialized programs including GPS supervision, work release, work centers and a variety of
community-based treatment programs.
Community Corrections also provides direct supervision for offenders sentenced to specialized
supervision programs such as drug court placements, mental health courts and sex offender
management teams. It is responsible for the oversight and daily operations of seven community
correction centers, 15 work centers and nine halfway houses.
To carry out these duties, DOC employed 337 probation and parole officers as of September 30,
2007. Reports dated October 31, 2007 indicate that the Division of Community Corrections had
an authorized staffing level of 996 positions and a budgeted staffing level of 816.72 positions for
fiscal 2008. The actual staffing level as of October 31, 2007 was 888.75, or 89.2 percent of the
authorized level. This compares to a staffing level of 79 percent of the authorized level for DOC
as a whole. Within the division, the probation and parole officer staffing complement was 305, 84
percent of the authorized level of 363.
The division is organized into seven districts—six probation and parole districts containing 72
office locations across the state and a seventh district that only administers and supervises
residential programs in Oklahoma County. This unusual arrangement was established due to the
number of residential facilities and community beds concentrated in that county.

Evidence-Based Supervision Practices
In 2005, Community Corrections began implementing a series of “evidence-based practices” as
the guiding principle for its supervision of offenders.
Evidenced-based practices (EBPs) are usually described as operating policies and procedures
developed from the application of scientific, empirically based research into approaches that can
be proven to positively affect inmate behavior. It is sometimes called the “what works” approach.
DOC has adopted EBP as the guiding principle in its supervision, management and treatment of
offenders. EBP allows the division to redirect resources toward programs and services that have a
proven track record of reducing recidivism rates.
To monitor the impact of the EBP, DOC has established and is tracking specific, measurable
outcomes concerning the completion of probation and parole. Most of these measures indicate
that the impact has been positive. For example, DOC data document an increase in the number of
Page 5-37

Community Programs

community offenders who maintain employment, which other national studies have demonstrated
to be a key indicator of success.
The data also indicate that the unemployment rates of those on probation and parole have
declined, and that those who have completed supervision since implementation have returned to
prison at lower rates than comparable groups who completed supervision before the
implementation of EBP (Exhibit 5-22).
EXHIBIT 5-22
Recent Changes in Unemployment and Successful Completion Rates
Unemployment Rate*
2006
2007

22.50%
18.9

*All Probation and Parole.

Success Rates
2005
2007*

80.32%
84.93

* Jan. – June 2007.

Source: MGT of America and Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

In interviews and focus-group meetings, probation and parole officers reported that EBP is
designed to allow officers some discretion in allocating available resources based on a risk
assessment. This is intended to help them identify offenders who need more intense supervision
and more frequent contacts, based on their measured risk.
PPOs interviewed by the review team all acknowledged being trained in EBP principles and
approaches, and stated that EBP has had a positive impact on caseloads and offenders.
During summer 2007, a consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) conducted a
review of DOC’s implementation of EBP, at the department’s request. In August 2007, NIC
issued a preliminary report containing specific recommendations to improve the effectiveness of
the division’s approach. These included the following:


reduce supervision time spent on low-risk offenders.



change practices involving intake and screening in urban areas to take
advantage of economies of scale.



consider developing centralized intake functions in all urban areas.



consider using LSI proxy tools which is a validated and reliable shortened
version used for initial screenings to speed the identification of low-risk
offenders.



free up line supervisors’ workload so that they can focus on enhancing
supervision by having more time to supervise and provide over-sight of the
PPO’s.

Not all of the PPO staff expressed support for the present supervision philosophy and its
emphasis on EBP principles. A minority of those MGT interviewed outlined two basic concerns
with the approach as it has been implemented.
Page 5-38

Community Programs

First, they noted that the availability of resources, including staffing and treatment options, which
are essential to EBP have not kept pace with the growth of the offender population. This has
resulted in increasingly unmanageable caseloads and prevents officers from making enough
meaningful contacts with some offenders.
Furthermore, some officers believe the law enforcement aspect of the supervision approach has
been diminished by the adoption of EBP. They said that deemphasizing these aspects of the
PPOs’ responsibilities is not in the best interest of public safety.

Caseload Size and Composition
Community Corrections uses a wide range of specialized supervision categories to manage
offenders. For example, seven of the Southwest District’s 40 officers are assigned to drug court
and sex offender caseloads. Many of these specialized caseloads are used only in large
jurisdictions (the Central and Tulsa districts). Others are present in some form in other districts as
well. Specialized caseloads include:


Administrative Management Caseload: Lower-risk absconders, inactive
parolees (usually after three years of supervision parolees who are no longer
supervised) and those placed on administrative supervision (reamin on active
status with limited over-sight) judges can be handled by administrative
assistants instead of probation and parole officers, freeing the latter to handle
other cases. Caseloads for administrative assistants range from 300 to 400, and
higher in some cases. Community Corrections can move probationers and
parolees to administrative supervision status unilaterally, without judicial or
parole board approval, and can reinstate them to active supervision at any time
if their behavior warrants such a move.



Drug Court: The division attempts to maintain caseloads at an average of 55
for these cases, but they sometimes go as high as 60. As noted above, funding
for these programs is funneled to courts from the Department of Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Services.
The probation officer and the drug court team have weekly contacts with
participants. A case management staffing, which is review of the status of the
offender in all aspects of his/her supervision, is also conducted by the drug
court team with clients who are “messing up” and subjected to progressive
sanctions.



DUI Court: As an outgrowth of the drug court, some jurisdictions have
created DUI courts as a separate program. The Central District in Oklahoma
County recently established a DUI court; Tulsa County has one as well. Other
jurisdictions incorporate DUI cases in the existing drug court structure. DUI
courts receive funding through MHSAS, and probation and parole officers
supervise the majority of offenders. In some jurisdictions, private operators,
and not the DOC PPO staff, provide supervision. DUI court supervision is
similar to that for regular drug court cases.

Page 5-39

Community Programs



Mental Health Court: About 25 offenders are enrolled in Oklahoma County’s
mental health court program. Tulsa County has initiated a similar program.
These programs employ the same model as the drug courts. Offenders who are
diagnosed with mental illness after they enter the criminal justice system are
eligible, although they are excluded for any type of violent offense or for sex
offenses. As with the drug courts, a special judge is assigned to this court. The
exclusion of violent offenders limits enrollment of the mentally ill as this is a
portion of the population who could benefit from participation if they do not
represent a serious risk to the public.



Diversion Caseload: This program is for chronic technical violators—
offenders who have not committed additional criminal offenses, but are failing
to comply with the standards and conditions of supervision. Oklahoma County
has assigned four officers to this program, with average caseloads of about 50.
Officers working this caseload form a “containment” team to determine the
most appropriate intervention strategy for each offender, whether it be mental
health treatment, substance abuse treatment, increased contact, etc. The
Oklahoma County PPOs have funding available to place this population in
county jail for short periods of time as a sanction Oklahoma County’s
diversion caseload program began in June 2007 and currently has 120
offenders assigned to it.



Parole Caseload: Oklahoma parole caseloads average 85 per officer. is the
state requires a three-year automatic review of these cases for possible
placement on the administrative management caseload, unless otherwise
stipulated by the parole board.



Sex Offenders: A grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Center for Sex
Offender Management (CSOM) helped DOC develop a team containment
model for sex offenders and provide training in the assessment and
management of sex offenders for all officers who specialize in this population.
These specialized caseloads are capped at 55 and senior officers are assigned
to them. Required minimum contacts with sex offenders are less than those
required for drug court cases. Since very few sex offenders are on global
positioning satellite (GPS) monitoring (see below), the minimum number of
contacts required appears to be out of line with the nature of the danger to
public safety this population presents.



Female Offender Caseload: The Central District has one program with one
officer supervising 95 female offenders. Traditional probation has not worked
for many women, according to the agency’s female offender task force. This
caseload program works on a family justice model, which is designed to
involve all members of the family unit in the support and treatment aspects of
supervision. The officer completes orientation for new offenders once each
week at the community corrections centers. The program often uses faithbased and other non-traditional family support programs designed especially
for women. Since most of the funding for treatment and other interventions is
focused on other populations (drug court, mental health court, etc.), DOC
reaches out to nonprofit and family support groups to provide services for this
group.
Page 5-40

Community Programs



Young Offender—Vocational: DOC partners with Carteret and Workforce
Oklahoma to provide specialized programs for its young offender population.
This program originated from a Carteret federal grant for 18 to 22-year-old
males. DOC staff reported that this is a problematic population. They have
changed the target age to 18 to 29, in hopes of achieving better success with an
older population. The program stresses training in construction-related trades.



GPS Caseload: Offenders in this caseload are monitored with global
positioning technology after successfully completing time in halfway houses,
community corrections centers and/or work centers. Offenders coming out of
prison into halfway houses must have a minimum of 1,440 days left on their
sentences to be eligible. They can become eligible for electronic monitoring,
which allows them to move out of the facility after 60 days of community
placement, although generally they have about 300 to 500 days left. They
receive reentry and treatment services while in the caseload; to be included,
they must have a job and a place to live. At any given time, about 400
offenders are being monitored through GPS. Oklahoma County had 86 (25
women and 61 men) as of the end of July 2007. PPO officer caseloads for this
population are capped at 35.

DOC uses key elements of the EBP approach in supervising both general and specialized
caseloads. One of these approaches involves concentrating resources on offenders who represent
the greatest risk of new offenses and who most jeopardize the safety of the public.
Community Corrections uses the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) as its primary
assessment tool for gauging the overall risk an offender presents, and for identifying his or her
program needs. The LSI-R assists PPO staff in identifying needs related to the offender’s
criminal behavior and provides the basis for the assigned supervision approach and program
requirements. The LSI-R assesses each offender as being at high, medium or low risk of engaging
in further criminal behavior.
After a PPO supervises and observes an offender for up to 180 days, and if the LSI-R determines
that he or she has no criminogenic needs (factors that are contributing to the offenders ongoing
involvement in criminal behavior), the offender is reviewed for placement on administrative
probation status or moved to inactive status. Cases on administrative status remain active but are
not supervised,, while those on inactive status are removed from any level of supervision or
monitoring by the DOC. The offender simply submits reports on his or her status through the mail
to comply with the conditions of probation. An example of someone on an administrative
caseload could be, for instance, a 25-year old offender sentenced for larceny of merchandise who
is in college with a strong family support system; an LSI that found no substance abuse or mental
health issues; and an assessment and case review that determined that there were no criminogenic
needs.
Such cases may go to unsupervised probation and be discharged directly from that status upon
completion of the sentence. If there are indicators after 180 days that the offender should continue
to be supervised and should not be moved to an administrative caseload, the PPO is required to
submit a recommendation to the supervisor to that effect.

Page 5-41

Community Programs

One of the benefits of this process is that it allows the department to direct its resources to those
who represent the greatest risk. Fewer resources are directed to those who represent a low risk.
The result has been a continuing movement of low-risk offenders to administrative caseloads,
increasing the availability of PPOs to focus on those who are high or moderate risks. The impact
of this policy decision can be seen in the number of offenders on active status (Exhibit 5-23).
Reports indicate that as of September 30, 2007, 27,415 offenders were on probation status in
Oklahoma; 22,113 were on “active” status. The difference in the number on probation versus
active status represents the number of offenders assigned to administrative supervision. The
number of DOC probationers on active status has fallen from a high of 23,607 in 2005.
EXHIBIT 5-23
Active Probation Cases, June 2002 – September 2007
Active Probation Cases
24000
23500
23000
22500
22000
21500
21000
20500
Jun02

Jun03

Jun04

Jun- Jun- Jun05
06
07
Active Cases

30Sep07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Although not all of this reduction can be directly attributed to EBP, the program has had a
significant impact. Certainly, the use of private supervision providers for those on probation
contributed to the reduction. As the number on active status has fallen, there has been an
accompanying drop in average caseloads, from a high of 95.6 per PPO in 2003 to a 75.6 in June
2007.
A more recent calculation indicates that as of September 30, 2007, the average caseload had
fallen further, to 73 cases per PPO. This is a significant reduction that permits officers to focus
their time and resources on higher-risk offenders. In focus groups, probation and parole officers
repeatedly stated that caseload averages have reduced as a result of EBP and that this reduction
improves their ability to manage their caseloads on a daily basis.
A number of PPOs expressed their feeling that DOC’s policy of eliminating or reducing
supervision for offenders who meet various criteria and are assessed as “low risk” is not in the
public’s best interest. According to these officers, low-risk offenders are placed on administrative
status after three to six months, even if they remain on court-ordered supervision, in clear
violation of the court’s orders.
Page 5-42

Community Programs

MGT’s interviews and research indicated that courts in several areas of the state have ordered
alternative probation supervision, usually managed by private probation companies, to
circumvent this practice. In addition, district attorneys have created special caseloads managed
and supervised by their own staff members. One DA said that this policy is needed to ensure a
period of supervision consistent with the court’s orders. Interviewees also said that several judges
have ordered DOC not to release low-risk offenders from supervision in contradiction of their
rulings.
These situations, however, clearly represented a minority of those we reviewed. MGT’s concern
is focused on the supervision provided by these alternative providers, and whether it meets the
needs of the court and public safety. Oklahoma needs statewide standards to govern the
supervision of offenders placed in such supervision.
The risk of any premature movement of offenders to administrative caseloads is a legitimate
concern. Obviously, DOC must monitor its supervision process as carefully as possible, to ensure
that it is effective and safe. The fact remains, however, that DOC’s resources simply do not allow
it to intensely supervise every offender placed under its jurisdiction.
Given its limited resources, DOC’s supervision policies and practices must be based on
thoughtful, research-based decisions. EBP uses nationally accepted risk instruments to determine
the level of supervision appropriate for each offender. Given the constraints and population
pressures DOC faces, its policy of moving low-risk offenders to administrative status is a logical
approach to ensuring that the highest-risk persons are supervised properly.

Caseload Variations
Despite statewide improvements in caseloads, problem areas remain within individual districts.
For example, Tulsa District has significant caseload problems; its PPOs manage an average 83
clients each, for specialized and general caseloads combined. For general caseloads alone, the
average in September 2007 was 109 per PPO. MGT found similar results in the Central District,
which includes Oklahoma County. In the Central District, the average caseload was 79 and the
average general caseload was 101 (Exhibit 5-24).
EXHIBIT 5-24
Probation and Parole Caseloads

District
Northeast
Southwest
Tulsa
Northwest
Southeast
Central

Caseloads as of Sept. 2007
Cases
PPOs
Avg. Case
3153
50
63
3138
40
78
3323
40
83
3469
52
66
3396
47
72
5634
71
79

General Case*
NA
85
109
NA
NA
101

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

*These Districts do not utilize specialized caseloads to the extent that it is identifiable and
measurable for these purposes.
Page 5-43

Community Programs

Several factors are spurring high caseloads in the Tulsa and Central districts. Both have higherthan-average PPO vacancy and turnover rates. And because officers assigned to specialized cases
(drug court, sex offenders, mental health court, etc.) work under standards requiring relatively
low caseloads, PPOs assigned to general cases usually bear the brunt of any additional work
prompted by officer vacancies. Hiring and training a new PPO generally requires at least six
months.
MGT also found that Tulsa team supervisors review their officers’ caseloads less often than
supervisors in other districts (such as the Southeast and Northeast District, for example), and
therefore they are not identifying cases for administrative and advanced termination as quickly.
The result is a larger pool of active cases that must distributed among available officers. We
observed some inconsistency in the application of standards for caseload review from district to
district. These practices should be reviewed and standardized where possible to ensure consistent
application statewide.
Finally, the rapid increase in drug court cases in both Tulsa and the Central District over the last
three years has resulted in reassignments of officers from regular caseloads to the drug courts.
Recent case assignment charts indicate that there are eight drug court officers in the Central
District and five in Tulsa. The concentration of drug court cases in these two districts has
significantly affected the size and composition of regular caseloads.
Although the legislature authorized 50 additional PPO positions two years ago, it has not yet
funded these positions. As of November 1, 2007, DOC reported that it had filled 10 of the 50
authorized positions by redistributing funds internally. These 10 positions have been used to
expand drug court supervision and to expand diversion caseloads in Oklahoma County.

Supervisor-to-PPO Ratios
DOC employs one supervisor to about 8.5 probation and parole officers. Administrators and
supervisors strongly recommended reducing this ratio, due to the additional duties and
expectations placed on supervisors since the implementation of EBP. These include significantly
greater case review responsibilities and the direct monitoring and training of line staff. In
addition, supervisors must mentor their staff members in EBP case management techniques.
Staff at every level agreed that supervisors’ responsibilities have increased significantly, but the
department has not removed or significantly altered any other responsibilities to facilitate their
ability to train and mentor employees.
The ratio of 1:8.5 is high. National best practices for systems utilizing EBP practices are in the
1:6 to 1:7 range.

Sex Offender Programs
DOC has received funding from CSOM to develop a “team containment” model for sex
offenders, and to train PPOs working these cases in assessing and managing sex offenders. The
containment model employs approaches that include intensive supervision, contracted treatment
providers, polygraph examinations and participation by victim advocates. These specialized
caseloads are capped at 55, and only senior officers work these cases.
Page 5-44

Community Programs

The overwhelming majority of sex offenders serve some probation time, since split sentences
combining prison with probation time are common.
All of the officers working these caseloads who were interviewed by MGT are well-trained in the
Containment Team model, and seemed enthusiastic about being their assignments. Since
CSOM’s three-year grant ended recently, DOC will need to ensure that new officers assigned to
these caseloads are as well-trained as their predecessors.
Resources for sex offender treatment appeared to be available in all areas we visited, with
exception of the Pawhuska Office in a rural area of the Northeast District. Providers from Tulsa
travel to the Northeast District on a weekly basis to provide offenders with group therapy. Similar
arrangements exist in other areas of the state to ensure that all offenders receive this service.
Like most states, Oklahoma state and local governments have placed extensive restrictions on
where sex offenders can reside. While all areas are affected by these measures, the Central and
Tulsa Districts in particular have few areas available for housing sex offenders in accordance with
these legal requirements. PPOs interviewed agree that sex offenders are being driven out of the
metropolitan areas and into rural Oklahoma or “underground,” and abscond from supervision.
DOC uses electronic monitoring with sex offenders only when ordered by the court and only in a
few sex offender categories. State law (22 O.S. 991a), requires that sex offenders designated as
“habitual” or “aggravated” must be monitored through GPS monitoring for the duration of the
required registration period, if so ordered by the court. DOC staff said that, since registration as a
sex offender lasts for life, judges rarely impose GPS monitoring

Community Correctional Centers, Work Centers, Halfway Houses
In Oklahoma, community corrections include community corrections centers (CCCs), community
contract facilities (halfway houses) and community work centers (CWCs). Eligibility for
placement in one of these facilities depends upon the inmate’s time until release; the nature of the
offense; criminal and adjustment history; and classification and custody level (Exhibit 5-25).
EXHIBIT 5-25
DOC Community Center Eligibility Standards
Status

Remaining Days

New Reception - with no disqualify criteria
Minimum
Minimum w/restrictions
57.O.S.521 – regardless of security level
Halfway House/Work Release

1,460
2,930
760
210
1,095

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections Policy.

Page 5-45

Community Programs

DOC policy OP-060104 provides further restrictions for program admission based on offense
category, earned credit level, criminal history and the nature of the offense. As of July 26, 2007,
3,938 inmates were in community correctional facilities (corrections centers, work centers,
halfway houses or GPS monitoring). DOC’s halfway house population rose by 45 percent
between 2000 and July 6, 2006, from 868 to 1,275. The population as of July 26, 2007 was 1,320.
To ensure that it makes the best possible use of these resources, DOC conducted an internal
review of all potentially eligible inmates in September 2007. The department identified 1,426
potentially eligible inmates, based on days remaining to release, and reviewed them further.
DOC’s review produced the following results:


ineligible due to the nature of the crime, sentence, misconduct record, escape
history, etc: 1,024;



eligible but not recommended due to medical holds (outstanding medical
conditions that require treatment), current participation in a required program,
etc: 263;



Cases that have been submitted and are in process of review for possible
approval by the DOC: 133; and



eligible and qualified: 6.

MGT reviewed the process DOC used to screen and review these inmates and concurs with its
criteria and selection process. MGT audited the case reviews by pulling supporting
documentation on 10 percent of the cases reviewed (146 cases) and concurred with the
department’s decision in each case. A review of the spreadsheet summarizing all cases found two
additional cases (of the 1,426) that were pending review and had been overlooked by staff;
neither person was found to be eligible during the subsequent review.
The community center criteria outlined in DOC policy OP–060104 is much more liberal than
those used in other states, however. Oklahoma is three times more likely to place an offender in a
community setting eight years (96 months) before release than other states. Many states restrict
community placement to the last 18 to 24 months before release, while others have even more
restrictive criteria. For instance, note the following criteria:


Alabama—12 months before release for males, 18 months for female
offenders.



Arkansas—12 months before release, with the approval of parole board.



Georgia—12 months before release.



Kentucky—18 months prior to parole eligibility.



Maryland—those with sentences of up to three years are eligible at reception;
others are eligible six months before release.



Missouri—45 days before release.



New York—24 months before release.



Federal Bureau of Prisons—final 10 percent of term, not to exceed six months
prior to release.
Page 5-46

Community Programs

GPS Surveillance Program
DOC uses a GPS surveillance program to assist in the reintegration of inmates into the
community. DOC policy OP-061001 establishes eligibility criteria for community placement
under GPS supervision. Briefly, the inmate must have no more 970 days remaining (depending on
earned credit) and must have been assigned to a halfway house for a minimum of 90 days. As of
July 26, 2007, Oklahoma had 396 inmates on GPS supervision.
MGT found that the present eligibility criteria and related rules are appropriate and need no
modification except as noted above, in reference to the sex offender population. The 970-day time
to release criteria is at the high end of similar programs operating in the U.S. and should not be
extended further.

Supervision Fees and Waivers
Oklahoma state law (Title 22, Chapter 16, Section 991d) requires DOC to collect a $40 monthly
supervision fee for each offender placed in community supervision unless the imposition of the
fee would impose an unnecessary hardship. The statute further states that these fees must be
deposited in DOC’s Revolving Fund. For each fiscal year, 50 percent of all of these fees must be
transferred to the General Revenue Fund until such transfers total $3 million (Exhibit 5-26).
EXHIBIT 5-26
Restitution and Fees, Fiscal 2001-2007
Fiscal Year
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007*

Restitution
$1,824,429
$1,811,641
$1,669,088
$1,639,158
$1,774,698
$1.675,177
$438,085

Prob and Parole
Fee/Support
$5,859,713
$6,001,631
$6,223,099
$5,912,515
$5,540,850
$5,096,069
$966,543

* Through September 30, 2007.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

DOC policy OP-160701, “Collection of Probation/Parole Fees, Restitution, and Program Support
Fees,” outlines the procedures to be used to collect these fees, as well as the process for waiving
them. Section IIIA of this regulation states that “Supervision fees are mandated by
statute…and...if sentencing documents do not specifically waive the fee, it will be collected.”
Section VII outlines a process for waiving or reducing the fee; supervision fees may be reduced
or waived for a 90-day period if a legitimate hardship can be verified.
DOC’s district supervisors can waive the supervision fee for a variety of reasons. For example,
fees for a sex offender may be waived so the money collected can be used for polygraph and
treatment.
Page 5-47

Community Programs

Since many offenders are discharged if their LSI scores are low and there are no criminogenic
needs to be addressed, they may or may not be required to pay supervision fees before discharge.
Since the fees that are collected go into the General Fund, DOC has no real motivation for
collecting them MGT found that some DOC offices are far more aggressive than others in
collecting the fees. Fees collected by PPOs? are forwarded to DOC’s Central Office for
processing. In a few areas, the county clerk receives and forwards these funds.
In practice, fees are waived for reasons other than hardship. In interviews, probation officers
routinely said that the supervision fees are waived as an incentive and reward for compliance with
supervision requirements and the completion of required programs. This practice is consistent
with EBP and appears to have been adopted without modifying the department’s operating
procedures.

Staff Training
Oklahoma state law (Title 57, Section 515) provides that all probation and parole officers “shall
be deemed peace officers and shall possess the powers granted by law to peace officers,” and that
PPOs must meet all of the training and other qualifications for peace officers required by Section
3311 of Title 70 of the statutes, as determined by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and
Training (CLEET).
After reviewing the requirements and time commitments required to complete certification, MGT
questions whether the PPO job responsibilities really require completion of the full and complete
certified peace officer curriculum. At present, DOC probation and parole officers must complete
375 hours of training to be certified as peace officers, as well as an additional 30 hours of
specialized training that applies only to DOC staff, for a total of 405 hours. Additional pre-service
and orientation training lifts the total to 721.5 hours.
As of January 1, 2008, furthermore, DOC is adding an additional 130 training hours for
certification, bringing the total to 851.5 hours. The additional hours include training in areas that
are of questionable value for PPOs, such as training in field sobriety testing (32 hours),
radar/lydar (24 hours) and crime scene investigation (40 hours).
The net effect is that as of January 1, 2008, 40.7 percent of a PPO’s available work hours in his or
her first year of employment are devoted to training.
The impact of these training requirements becomes obvious in reviewing individual experiences.
One officer MGT interviewed was hired in December 2006. She was assigned to an office for the
first two weeks; participated in CLEET training for the next 14 weeks; and then completed two
weeks of DOC training. Eight months after being hired, this PPO had completed 16 weeks of
training, still had two additional weeks of “new employee” DOC training before her, and said she
had only limited authorization to complete LSI-R assessments.
The officers and supervisors interviewed generally agreed that peace officer status is
advantageous, and supported CLEET certification. Many, however, doubted that some specific
curriculum requirements in the training program were relevant or helpful, and said that some
were totally unrelated to their job responsibilities, such as training in vehicular pursuit and crime
scene identification and preservation.
Page 5-48

Community Programs

Intake Processes; Centralized PSI Unit
The state’s two largest urban districts, Central (Oklahoma County) and Tulsa, have specialized
units for intake. The intake units, located near the courts, process offenders into the probation
program. These units offer better efficiency and consistency in processing reports and completing
the intake process, and let PPOs focus on the needs of their caseloads. This is particularly useful
given Oklahoma’s generally high caseloads.
The Oklahoma County intake center includes both court and intake services. Offenders processed
by the intake office include those sentenced in the county to probation; all persons leaving prison
on parole; and any transfers to Oklahoma County that are to be supervised locally. Record
officers stationed in the intake office initiate the formal offender record. Court services provide
support to individual judges as requested. The intake offices also serve as clearinghouses for
intake into prison, complete preliminary documents and record data on DOC’s offender
management system.
The unit has seven funded positions, including a supervisor, two records employees, two court
services employees and two administrative assistants who process intake and pre-sentence
investigation (PSI) report referrals. It processed 455 offenders in April 2007 and 367 in July
2007.
The administrative assistants complete a five-page information sheet on each offender, as well as
a personal history sheet. Due to the limitations of DOC’s offender management system and the
Oklahoma court network, the data collected usually must be obtained and transmitted manually.
They also initiate the “field file,” a master record file that follows each offender throughout his or
her period of supervision or custody.
Intake officers assign all pre-sentence investigation reports to district officers. The district
attorney and/or a public defender can request a PSI on any offender; in practice, about 75 percent
of offenders require a report. District probation and parole officers must complete these reports in
addition to their other duties. This is the practice in all other districts and sub-offices except for
the Tulsa District, which has created a special unit to complete pre-sentence investigations.
Most urban areas MGT has studied have specialized PSI units, and certainly, the Central District
could benefit from one. It would improve the investigations’ quality and efficiency reviews while
giving PPOs additional time to work their assigned caseloads.
The one disadvantage of a centralized PSI unit is that it reduces the PPOs’ opportunity to study
the offenders in their charge and their specific needs. In most rural areas of Oklahoma we visited,
PPOs completed the PSIs on sex offenders who would be subsequently assigned to their
caseloads. This allowed the officers to begin learning about the offender from the beginning of
their supervision. In Oklahoma County, however, all officers are assigned PSIs randomly They
are assigned cases that normally they are subsequently assigned to supervise on a regular basis. In
any case, preparing PSIs can be a very time-consuming process (most officers can complete only
two to four each month).

Page 5-49

Community Programs

Contract Monitoring
Community Corrections contracts with and provides compliance monitoring for the nine halfway
house programs DOC uses. This monitoring occurs separately from the contract monitoring
functions performed by the Field Operations Division for private prison and jail contracts.
As noted elsewhere in this report, these two separate contract monitoring functions represent
duplicated effort. While the contractual requirements for the halfway houses and the private
prison beds are different, the approach and processes used to monitor these agreement are similar,
if not identical.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 5-19. The Oklahoma County District should be abolished, and its
functions reassigned to the administration of the Central District. MGT found no
compelling reason to maintain this district as a separate entity.
Recommendation 5-20. DOC’s implementation of EBP is consistent with national
trends and standards. The department should continue to refine and improve its
approach as it develops additional data on its offender population. MGT endorses the
findings and recommendations of the recently completed National Institute of Corrections
assessment.
Recommendation 5-21. DOC should expand its monitoring of the performance and
recidivism rates of offenders placed on administrative and inactive status and report its
findings to the legislature annually.
Recommendation 5-22. The Oklahoma legislature should develop statewide standards
for the supervision of offenders placed with private supervision providers.
Recommendation 5-23. DOC should develop a five-year plan to achieve lower ratios of
supervisors to line officers.
Recommendation 5-24. DOC should offer the legislature alternative solutions to
problems related to housing sex offenders caused by restrictions on their placement.
Recommendation 5-25. The legislature should amend state law (Title 22, Section 991a)
to encourage broader use of GPS in sex offender cases. MGT recommends using a
fixed period for this monitoring that is not tied directly to the lifetime registration period
of registration, to encourage its use by the judiciary, particularly during the first two years
of supervision.
Recommendation 5-26. DOC should assess programs that restrict inmates from
community placement, and determine whether they can be provided cost-effectively in a
community setting, either by contractors or departmental employees. Of a sample of
1,426 cases reviewed for community placement, 319 were restricted from community
placement due to active participation in various programs (Career Tech, Regimented
Treatment Program, Keys to Life, etc.) or a scheduled start date for entry into a program.
Page 5-50

Community Programs

Recommendation 5-27. DOC should establish a process for screening DOC inmates in
county jails for their suitability for community placement, and when possible accelerate
their transfer to Lexington to verify this eligibility. DOC does not routinely assess these
prisoners. It can be assumed that some of them would meet the eligibility criteria, but no
formal review of these cases has been conducted.
Recommendation 5-28. The damaged Clara Waters Community Correction Center in
Oklahoma County is being rebuilt and will include a program component for technical
violators of community programs. DOC should consider expanding this program to
include other offerings that could expedite community center placements. These could
include Regimented Treatment and other required program offerings that presently
preclude placement in the community until completion. This recommendation may
require an expansion of bed capacity at the center, but should open up other DOC beds,
producing a net increase in capacity.
Recommendation 5-29. DOC should review its fee collection process to improve
consistency and equity in its standards for waiving the fees. While the reasons MGT
was given for fee waivers are consistent with EBP principles, there is no statewide
standard or direction on this matter.
Recommendation 5-30. The legislature should modify the CLEET requirements to
create a special peace officer category for parole and probation officers, with an
accompanying modification of the training curriculum to make it more consistent with
their duties and responsibilities. CLEET should eliminate the training elements that have
no relevance to their duties, and where possible substitute relevant training that would
enhance and improve their performance.
Recommendation 5-31. DOC should establish a special unit to complete pre-sentence
investigation reports for offenders sentenced in Oklahoma County.
Recommendation 5-32. DOC should review the workloads of the Oklahoma County
and Tulsa intake units and recommend specific funding increases to the legislature.
MGT found that the staff presently allocated to these units cannot cope with their
workloads. In Oklahoma County, our review showed a need for at least four additional
employees. A more thorough workload review could recommend other efficiencies.
Recommendation 5-33. DOC should finish development of the new COMIT
information system as soon as possible, and incorporate the automation of the intake
units into the process. The existing intake process is inefficient, costly and duplicative of
other, related functions. An improved automation system to replace the existing OMS
should result in considerable staff savings, improve efficiency and eliminate errors
created by excessive workloads.
Recommendation 5-34. DOC should consolidate its contract monitoring functions in a
single unit outside the scope of authority of the Division of Community Corrections.

Page 5-51

6.0 INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS &
SUPPORT SERVICES

6.0 INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS &
SUPPORT SERVICES
Introduction
MGT’s review of DOC’s institutional operations was intended to:


develop a full understanding of DOC’s institutional operations;



identify the strengths, weaknesses and issues associated with current
operations, programs, support functions and security systems; and



assess overall institutional performance, efficiency and usage of staff
resources.

To achieve the objectives, the MGT project team visited a number of DOC institutions, including:
Oklahoma State Reformatory
Lexington Assessment and Reception
Joe Harp
Jess Dunn
James Crabtree
John Lilly
Davis (CCA)

Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Jackie Brannon
Mabel Bassett
Eddie Warrior
Bill Johnson
Lawton (GEO)

These facilities represent 76 percent of DOC’s total secure facility capacity.
Our on-site reviews included direct observations; interviews with administrative, supervisory and
line staff; a staffing analysis; and a review of available data and documents related to he
institutional operations.
MGT identified several core issues that should be addressed to ensure that the facilities operate in
a safe and secure manner, while meeting the needs of their inmates.

Staffing
Staffing can account for more than 75 percent of an institution’s annual budget. The assessment
of personnel requirements and the allocation of staff, then, is an essential task.
Each DOC correctional facility has an authorized staffing level that has been approved by
members of the agency’s executive staff. These staffing levels are based on analyses performed
by Institution Division staff, in collaboration with facility employees, which identify the
personnel needed to consistently meet each facility’s responsibilities and maintain a safe and
secure prison environment.
In determining appropriate staffing required to operate a facility, the division must identify the
posts that must be filled; the days and time when they need to be filled; and the average actual
hours each employee must work to complete required tasks and provide adequate supervision.

Page 6-1

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Obviously, actual hours worked differ from these schedules, however, since some employees
throughout the year will be unable to fill a post on a scheduled work day due to training, sick
leave, vacation or other time off. This leads to the concept commonly called the relief factor,
which identifies the number of full-time equivalent staff members (FTEs) actually needed to fill a
single approved post over a given time period. DOC has established a seven-day relief factor of
1.79; in other words, the department assumes that it needs 1.79 FTEs to fill one post daily during
a seven-day week. Most security posts require a relief factor to meet facility responsibilities,
although non-security positions and select security posts normally do not.
DOC’s current relief factor has not been updated since 2004. Most systems complete formal
updates to the relief factor annually, since an inaccurate relief factor can lead to under- or
overstaffing.
In addition to the relief factor, DOC has established classification levels that identify different
security posts as either “fixed,” “pull” or “shutdown” posts.


Fixed posts are those that must be filled on each shift. In the case of a staff
shortage, additional employees must be assigned to fill a fixed post, through
overtime expenditures or the closure of shutdown posts (see below).



Pull posts may be left vacant for up to six hours on a shift, if the facility’s
operating needs and staff availability so dictate.



Shutdown posts are posts that should be staffed unless staff shortages, unusual
circumstances or emergencies dictate otherwise. A shutdown post closed for
more than 72 consecutive hours in any 28-day cycle must be documented on
the appropriate daily shift roster, with an indication of why the post was
closed.

Each post serves its role in meeting facility responsibilities. When an insufficient number of
employees is available on a shift, managers can fill posts either by paying available staff overtime
(time and one-half) or by leaving pull posts vacant for a time and closing shutdown posts. Again,
fixed posts generally cannot be closed.
This staffing process has been complicated by the fact that DOC’s approved funding plans for its
facilities will not cover the cost of its approved staffing plan. DOC reports that it has enough
funding available to staff its institutions at a rate of 82 percent of the authorized staffing level.
Even with this level of funding, most facilities are meeting their responsibilities and maintaining
safe and secure institutions by filling posts through overtime, absorbing responsibilities through
staff assigned to other posts or consistently closing pull and shutdown posts deemed nonessential.
The inevitable result of inadequate staffing, however, is low employee morale. Staff at several
facilities including the Oklahoma State Reformatory, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Jackie
Brannon Correctional Center, James Crabtree Correctional Center and Lexington Assessment and
Reception Center expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the number of staff available to
meet their responsibilities.
Some of the Institutions Division’s staff vacancies, though, are not due to funding restrictions, but
to a limited pool of qualified individuals available to fill vacant, funded positions. Recruitment
efforts are a high priority of the division. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Oklahoma State
Page 6-2

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Reformatory, Lexington, Jackie Brannon, and James Crabtree all have found it difficult to locate
qualified job candidates.
Factors contributing to the limited pool of qualified candidates include:


initial pay rates that are lower than competitive employers;



numerous employment options in the oil industry, railroads and private
prisons;



rotating work schedules that disrupt home and family routines;



an extremely time-consuming hiring process that often results in eligible
candidates finding alternative employment during the waiting period; and



mandatory overtime work in most facilities

MGT’s review of the master and daily rosters at several facilities indicated that they were
deploying available staff effectively in critical posts. Employees were assigned proportionately
among the shifts and regularly scheduled days off were balanced appropriately. The chief of
Security at all facilities demonstrated sufficient knowledge and expertise in roster management to
ensure efficient use of existing staff.
While DOC reports that it funds Institutions Division staffing at a rate of 82 percent of the
authorized staffing levels, the actual average percentage of filled correctional positions from
January through September 2007 was 78 percent, due to factors such as high employee turnover
and difficulties in employee recruiting.
Most DOC facilities have been able to meet their responsibilities with current funding by vacating
posts, eliminating staff breaks, asking employees to absorb additional responsibilities and/or
using overtime. At some facilities, however, such adjustments have not been sufficient. Five
institutions in particular have experienced difficulties in consistently meeting their
responsibilities.
These include the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) and Oklahoma State Reformatory (OSR),
which house inmates classified in the higher-risk custody levels of maximum and medium. The
remaining three facilities are correctional centers that need additional staff, but not as critically as
OSP and OSR (Exhibit 6-1).

Page 6-3

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-1

DOC Institutions with Significant Staffing Shortages
As of August 31, 2007
Authorized
COs

Funded
( 82%)

Positions
Filled

% of Funded
Positions
Filled

Oklahoma State
Penitentiary
Oklahoma State
Reformatory

402

330

292

88.5

% of
Authorized
Positions
Filled
73%

166

136

101

74.3

61%

Lexington Reception Center
Jackie Brannon
James Crabtree

196
79
125

161
65
102

133
62
81

82.6
95.4
79.4

68%
78%
65%

Institution

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

Oklahoma State Penitentiary: OSP is the state’s only male maximum-security facility.
Individuals housed there include inmates sentenced to death, maximum-security mental health
inmates, disruptive inmates, maximum-security infirmary patients and other high-risk inmates.
The diversity and risk level of this population, OSP’s physical plant and safety issues are all
factors affecting the need for appropriate staffing.
As noted in Exhibit 6-1, OSP was operating at 88.5 percent of its funded level and only 73
percent of the authorized level on August 31, 2007. This does not provide enough corrections
officers to provide adequate staff coverage in key areas. The impact of staff vacancies was most
evident in assignments for Housing Units A and C, Central Control, Gang Intelligence,
Compound and the relief posts.
Human resource staff said that the facility has a comprehensive recruitment plan that includes the
use of temporary positions to reduce the lengthy waiting period imposed by the hiring process.
The temporary employees can then be converted to full-time regular employees with benefits at
the discretion of the institution. They also noted, however, that other employment opportunities
with higher initial pay were available in the immediate area, limiting the pool of eligible
candidates.
One factor that hampers department recruiting efforts is the current state requirement that an
individual must be 21 years of age to apply for a correctional officer position. Most states have
established minimum age levels of 18 or 19.
The following table summarizes a review of age criteria for correctional officer positions.

Page 6-4

Institutional Operations & Support Services

State
Texas
New Mexico
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Arkansas
Alabama
Nebraska
Florida
Georgia
California
Idaho
Illinois

Minimum Age
18
18
High School Diploma (HSD)
18
21
HSD
19
18
19
18
21
HSD
18

Officials in states with lower minimum ages indicate they have not experienced problems in
officer quality resulting from their lower age requirements. To the extent that a state has a good
training program for its correctional officers, and an effective staff supervision/command system,
there do not appear to be significant issues associated with a lower minimum age. Moreover,
only a select number of positions within each prison require CLEET certification, so a lower
minimum hiring age for correctional officers would not affect current statutory requirements for
CLEET certification. Lowering the minimum age for employment as a correctional officer may
be an effective option to increase the department’s pool of potential employees.
In addition to security, other major departments at the facility have experienced substantial
vacancies, including the business office, maintenance, medical, food service and case
management. Medical staff reported that nurse positions are very difficult to fill due to
competitive employment opportunities with higher pay scales.
The staffing complement of 73 percent of authorized staffing has had a direct impact on OSP’s
operational efficiency. Key effects include:


poor staff morale;



inadequate security supervision in housing units;



inconsistent observation of security surveillance equipment;



inability to complete required security responsibilities including cell searches,
and inmate and staff shakedowns;



high overtime expenditures;



increased inmate idleness; and



high staff turnover.

Page 6-5

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Oklahoma State Reformatory: OSR is a male medium-security facility that was operating at 74.3
percent of its funded level and just 61 percent of the authorized level on August 31, 2007. This
does not allow for enough staff to cover the housing units, the medical unit, gang intelligence or
the yard area adequately, or to deploy enough relief staff to provide appropriate coverage of
critical posts. OSR had 65 vacant relief posts on August 31.
OSR’s staff shortages, like OSP’s, are due in part to an inadequate number of qualified job
applicants. Administrative and line staff reported that they face significant competition from
employment opportunities in the local oil fields, where the starting pay is several dollars per hour
more. Furthermore, even if an individual is interested in a career in corrections, a private prison
located within 30 miles of OSR offers higher starting pay. Staff also reported that two inmate
homicides at the reformatory during fiscal 2006 discouraged some potential applicants.
OSR had a 25.7 percent vacancy rate in security positions. The most obvious effect of these
vacancies is insufficient staffing in housing units, central control, gang intelligence and the yard
area. Collateral responsibilities including cell searches, inmate pat-downs, surveillance
monitoring and intelligence gathering are not completed on any consistent basis. Posts not staffed
on a regular basis include the second security officer for each general population housing unit, a
medical unit officer, a second yard officer on the first shift and the second officer in Central
Control.
Based on a review of a selected sample of overtime reports, at least five security officers must
work overtime every day to fill essential posts.
Lexington Assessment & Reception Center (LARC): DOC’s assessment and reception center
operated at 82.6 percent of the funded level and 68 percent of the authorized level on August 31.
Staff shortages there are primarily due to staff transfers and employees leaving the department.
During the first seven months of 2007, 13 security officers transferred out of the facility and six
others quit. In addition, staff reported at least six officers must be pulled from their posts daily to
meet inmate transportation responsibilities.
James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC): JCCC operated at 79.4 percent of its funded
staffing level and 68 percent of the authorized level as of August 31. Critical posts left vacant
include posts assigned to Housing Unit Six, transportation and the yard.
JCCC has a comprehensive recruitment program that includes marketing efforts throughout the
area. Documentation provided reflects a recruitment plan that was as impressive as any in the
state. Even so, employment options in the oil industry, railroads and at the Bill Johnson
Correctional Center limit the pool of eligible candidates.
All but one of JCCC’s 43 vacant security positions were security officer positions. JCCC copes
with the vacancies by closing pulled posts and shorting the number of staff available to fill
required relief posts. Staff shortages throughout the facility limit its ability to fill required posts
and conduct routine property searches, area shakedowns, inmate drug testing and internal
investigations.
JCCC also had critical vacancies in non-security positions including correctional counselor,
correctional activities officer and clerical support. Staff reported that the correctional counselor
positions are being phased out and the existing vacancies will not be filled.
Page 6-6

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Jackie Brannon Correctional Center (JBCC): JBCC operated at 95.4 percent of the funded level
and 78 percent of the authorized staffing level on August 31. JBCC is a minimum-security facility
located in McAlester adjacent to OSP. As with the other institutions, JBCC administrative and
line staff said that low pay and competing employment opportunities in the area hurt recruitment
efforts. Starting pay rate for employees working the oil fields is several dollars per hour more
than the starting pay for a correctional officer, although the benefits reportedly are not as good as
those offered by the state.
JBCC uses overtime to fill the minimum number of required posts. Even so, staffing assigned to
housing units B and C is clearly inadequate, as is the utility staffing assigned to assist with
visitation and ground supervision. A review of overtime reports indicated that an average of one
security staff member must work overtime to fill a vacant fixed post each day.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-1. DOC should ensure consistent staffing of the following
additional posts at OSP:


Housing Unit A Officer. Each shift should have one additional officer assigned to the
unit. This would result in three additional seven-day posts.



Housing Unit C Officer. Each shift should have one additional officer assigned to the
unit. This would result in three additional seven-day posts.



Compound/Movement Control. DOC should create compound posts that would
provide movement control and immediate security support within the facility. These
positions were previously identified in the 2002 post chart. The recommended posts
should include one on the 10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. shift, two (2) on the 6:00 a.m. –
2:00 p.m. shift and two (2) on the 2:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. shift. Each post should be
considered a seven-day relief post.



Gang Intelligence Officer. DOC should create a gang intelligence officer post to
focus on gathering intelligence information on inmates posing security threats.

Recommendation 6-2. DOC should reconsider its present policy of funding all facilities
equally at 82 percent of the authorized staffing level. The use of a uniform 82 percent
funding level for each facility ignores difference in their missions, populations and
operational requirements, policies and practices.
Based on our facilities review, MGT proposes the following staffing roster and funding
levels (Exhibit 6-2):

Page 6-7

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-2
Recommended Funding Levels for Understaffed Institutions

Authorized
Funded
Filled
Additional Staff
Required
Recommended
Minimum
Funding Level

OSP
402
330
292
11.51*

OSR
166
136
101
9.93 *

JCCC
125
102.5
81
6.91*

JBCC
79
65
62
4.86*

LARC
196
161
133
7.68*

342 (85%)

146 (87.95%)

109 (87.2%)

70 (88.6%)

169 (86.2%)

*Rounded to nearest whole number.
Source: MGT of America.

Recommendation 6-3. DOC should enhance its current statewide recruitment and
retention strategies to better assist facilities that cannot meet established staffing
funding levels. Although there are efforts throughout the state to improve recruitment
and retention, the efforts in this area should be more centrally coordinated and the
approaches proven to be effective emulated state-wide. The goal of this process should be
to expand the number of qualified candidates willing to consider employment at the
facility.
Recommendation 6.4. The DOC should lower the minimum age for correctional officer
employment to 19. This level is consistent or higher than requirements established in
most states, and would increase the department’s pool of eligible staff.
Recommendation 6-5. DOC should implement a systemwide policy that halts staff
transfers whenever an institution is operating at 5 percent below the funded staffing
level.
Recommendation 6-6. DOC should evaluate its hiring process to find ways to expedite
it, so that job applicants are not lost to lengthy delays. OSP hires staff as temporary
employees while they complete the necessary pre-employment background checks. DOC
should build on this initiative to recruit new employees more aggressively.
Recommendation 6-7. DOC should calculate the relief factor for each facility annually.
As noted above, the present relief factor was last calculated in 2004, and is used
throughout the entire department. MGT’s experience is that relief factors should be
varied among institutions and even geographic regions to produce the best accuracy.
DOC should calculate a unique relief factor for each of its units. This would significantly
enhance its accuracy in projecting its staffing needs.

Page 6-8

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Staff Retention
As we have seen, recruitment is one critical issue affecting correctional staffing; retaining those
employees once hired is another. The Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Oklahoma State Reformatory
and the privately operated Lawton Correctional Center have significant problems with staff
retention.
Oklahoma State Penitentiary: A review of staff retention rates indicated that 72 staff members
left OSP during fiscal 2007, or 18.1 percent of the facility’s total staff (Exhibit 6-3). Of these, 58
were security personnel. Other employment opportunities, retirements and the annual required
shift rotation for security staff were the primary reasons cited for these departures.
EXHIBIT 6-3
Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Employee Retention Statistics
Fiscal 2005-2007
Fiscal Year Number Hired
2007
2006
2005

68
68
62

Hired During the Year and
Currently Employed
47
38
35

Retention Rate
69.1
55.9
56.5

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

As Exhibit 6-3 indicates, more than 30 percent of the staff hired at OSP during fiscal 2007 left
within their first year of employment.
Oklahoma State Reformatory: Administrative and line staff at OSR told MGT that more lucrative
employment opportunities with local oil field companies is the largest factor hurting staff
retention at their facility, and as noted above, a private prison within 30 miles of OSR hires
frequently and pays more.
During the first seven months of calendar 2007, OSR hired 14 new security hires and lost 11. In
fiscal 2006, 31 security officers left the facility.
Lawton Correctional Center: Lawton is a privately operated facility with an aggressive and
professional recruitment process that continually screens and hires applicants. During the first six
months of 2007, Lawton hired 206 new employees, for an average of 34 new hires per month.
During 2006, the center hired 384 new employees, for an average of 32 per month. Even so, the
facility has been plagued by extremely high turnover in recent months (Exhibit 6-4).

Page 6-9

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-4
Lawton Correctional Center
Staff Hires and Terminations
January–June 2007
2007
January
February
March
April
May
June
Total

New Hires
53
31
17
39
37
29
206

Terminations
29
19
27
27
28
33
163

Source: Lawton Correctional Center.

The most common reasons reported for staff terminations included alternative employment, job
abandonment and personal reasons. Lawton is Oklahoma’s third-largest city and offers a number
of employment opportunities, including a Goodyear plant and the Fort Sill military base. Staff
reported that some employees often hire on at the Lawton Correctional Center with the intent of
staying only until they find another job with better pay and benefits and a lower-stress work
environment.
Lawton security staff told MGT that overtime work is regularly available. Management provided
a report indicating security employees worked an average of 27.7 hours of overtime each month
from May to July 2007. This compared to an average of 19.6 hours of overtime during the same
three months in 2006. Overtime for security staff usually involves filling fixed posts.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-8. DOC should require its facilities to conduct exit interviews for
staff terminating employment to clearly identify and document their reasons. DOC then
should develop action plans to address trends identified through these exit interviews.
Recommendation 6-9. DOC should reconsider its practice of rotating work schedules
(the required rotation to a different work shift) annually to determine its impact on
employee recruitment and retention. Security officers said that shift rotation is one of the
primary reasons for low morale and high staff turnover.

Page 6-10

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Physical Plant and Infrastructure
DOC operates a number of facilities that were not originally built to house adult offenders. Six of
its facilities were not originally built as prisons. One was originally designed to be a regional
hospital. Another once served as a satellite facility to OSP and was later converted into a hospital
and then into a training camp before becoming a correctional center. All of these facilities had
significantly different missions when originally constructed and contain structures that are more
than 75 years old.
DOC’s Institutions Division develops an annual capital outlay request and capital improvement
plan to identify its physical plant and infrastructure needs. This list is prioritized for possible
funding consideration. Consistent state underfunding for such capital expenditures has limited the
value of this tool, but it is relevant in that it documents the division’s needs. In fiscal 2007, the
division made more than 200 capital outlay requests with an overall estimated cost of more than
$490 million. The type of requests contained in the document range from roofing repairs to new
housing units.
During the course of MGT’s site visits, the review team found evidence of serious deterioration in
DOC facilities. Although the team members are not engineers or architects, each has significant
experience in operating and managing correctional facilities and understands the impact of a
deteriorating physical plant on safety and security. The situation at some facilities places the
health and safety of staff and inmates at risk. As such, DOC should develop and fund an
aggressive remedial plan that prioritizes repairs of the most critical issues.
MGT’s observations and concerns include the following:
Joseph Harp Correctional Center: This facility currently has 19 projects on the Long-Range
Capital Planning Commission list totaling $6,378,785. This is a list that prioritizes the
department’s capital needs. The center’s maintenance supervisor expressed frustration regarding
the lack of funding for repairs as well as routine maintenance. One target of his frustration is the
first project listed on the Capital Planning document: roof repairs. According to the supervisor,
this item has been on the list for ten years without any action or funding.
Two additional areas of concern are the boilers and the waster water treatment plant. Staff report
that neither is sufficient to adequately support the center’s current population.
Jess Dunn Correctional Center: MGT observed two critical problems at Jess Dunn. The first is a
critical shortage of emergency electrical generator capacity. The center has only two generators,
and one is a very old piece of equipment that supports only the boiler and some interior lighting.
This generator must be started each time there is a power failure. The other, newer generator
supports only the Specialized Housing Unit and Central Control. Exterior lights, including those
along the institutional perimeter fence, and the facility kitchen have no backup generator power.
The second critical concern involves the age of the facility’s electrical system, and its capacity to
carry the load currently demanded of it. Parts of the system still use antiquated, screw-in fuse
boxes. Staff said that the system is operating at the very limit of its load-carrying capacity.

Page 6-11

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Eddie Warrior Correctional Center: Eddie Warrior is seriously deficient in emergency electrical
generator capacity. The only two available generators support the medical area, the Special
Housing Unit and the kitchen. Lighting for the institutional perimeter is not supported.
Lexington Assessment & Reception Center: As with Joseph Harp, this 30-year old facility has
had little or no funding allocated for capital improvements. Roof leaks in particular are causing
problems in all areas of the institution. The LARC administration has produced a list of capital
improvement needs that totals $11,411,000. Critical items include roof repair/replacement, boiler
repair/replacement, HVAC and refrigeration equipment repair, new perimeter lighting and water
well repair.
Jackie Brannon Correctional Center: The Jackie Brannon C Unit is a three-story unit, built in
1938, which was originally used as a community hospital. In 1978, the hospital became into the
McAlester Community Treatment Center; in 1993 this center was merged into the correctional
center. The C Unit has an operating capacity of 284 inmates, housed in multiple-occupancy
rooms on the second and third floors. The first floor consists of a secure control center,
administrative and staff offices, inmate records and program space.
Inmates residing in the unit generally are assigned to the Prisoner Publics Works Program or the
Substance Abuse Treatment Program. A portion of the building previously used for parole and
probation offices is vacant and not being used due to its lack of an adequate sprinkler system.
The institution has requested funding to repair the unit’s roof. This request has been submitted for
consideration for the last eight consecutive years. In addition, the unit’s electrical wiring is
reportedly 70 years old; its sprinkler system is incomplete; and its asbestos abatement costs have
been estimated at $188,000.
C Unit is located in a remote location of the complex:


0.75 miles from the medical unit;



0.8 miles from the visiting room;



0.5 miles from the food service building; and



0.4 miles from the chapel and education buildings.

Inmates residing there usually walk to and from the service buildings. During inclement weather
and after dark, the inmates are transported via a tractor trolley. The unit’s location impedes the
efficiency of service delivery and security supervision.
Oklahoma State Reformatory: OSR’s physical plant includes a diverse collection of correctional
architecture representing a century of structural designs. The facility’s support and sanitation
systems appear to have received adequate maintenance, as evidenced by its manicured grounds
and generally well-maintained buildings. An appropriate number of inmates appeared to be
assigned to support responsibilities.
OSR’s original housing units, East and West, are no longer used and have been condemned.
Despite this, they still stand and MGT was told that there are no apparent plans to demolish these
buildings.
Page 6-12

Institutional Operations & Support Services

The medical unit is located inside the reformatory walls, near the administration building. The
unit offers space for exam rooms, office space, record storage, a waiting area, a triage area, dental
and x-ray facilities and limited storage space for medications. Three surveillance cameras are
strategically positioned within the building; a video monitor located in the health care
administrator’s office displays a view provided by one of the security cameras.
The medical unit’s space is extremely limited, given the number of inmates treated there. Waiting
room space extends into a common hallway in the unit, which prevents the control of inmate
movement, normally a requirement in a medium-security prison.
OSR has an open recreation yard in the middle of the main facility. Inmate access to the yard
rotates on a pre-approved, scheduled basis. The recreation yard is separated from Housing Units
A through D by security fencing and gates that surround each of the four housing units. Most
activity in the yard is visible to staff assigned to the yard and perimeter towers. The location of
the medical unit, chapel and laundry, however, restricts staff visibility to some areas of the yard.
Additional recreation space is available in the gymnasium and in areas adjacent to each housing
unit.
Oklahoma State Penitentiary: Construction of OSP began in 1908. The West Cellhouse and
Administration Building were the first buildings completed. As the prison’s population grew, East
House, F House and the “New” cellhouse were added. In time, three of the four original cell units
were closed; F House, built in 1937, is the only original unit still being used. The East and West
cellhouses remain standing but have been unoccupied since 1984. The G Unit, built in 1949, is
still being used as well.
OSR’s remaining housing units were created by converting existing support space (I Unit and the
Minimum Security Unit) or were built within the past 30 years.
OSP’s physical plant is unique in a number of ways, including:


overall age;



the wide variety of housing unit designs;



the existence of a rodeo arena inside the facility’s walls; and



its use of converted space for housing.

OSR administration has placed a high priority on maintaining the facility properly despite its age
and limited funding. Still, the facility’s overall condition, design and staffing complement call its
continued effectiveness into question.
Projects recommended for funding in fiscal 2007 included $320,000 for roof repairs and
$110,000 for renovations to comply with the provisions of the American Disability Act. In
addition, OSR submitted a request for a water tower to provide a backup water supply in case of
an emergency, at an estimated cost of $547,000.
In all, $3.1 million of capital outlay requests for major repairs appear to be a result of the aging of
the penitentiary (Exhibit 6-5).
Page 6-13

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-5
Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Capital Outlay Requests, Fiscal 2008
Type
Roofing Repairs
Light Replacement, A,C & F
ADA Renovation
Food Warehouse
High Mast Lights and Generator
Remodel New Administration Building
Total

Total Project
$320,000
$160,000
$121,000
$1,925,000
$427,000
$185,000
$3,138,000

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Limited funding and maintenance staff have prevented the facility from performing preventive
maintenance or completing the sort of minor repairs that eventually evolve into major problems.
Traditionally, DOC has addressed shortages of maximum-security bed space at Oklahoma State
Penitentiary by expanding its perimeter and opening new housing units. The East and West
cellhouses and the “New” cellhouse that was severely damaged during an inmate disturbance in
1973 were replaced with the A, C, D, E, and H Units. OSP’s newest housing unit opened in 1991.
James Crabtree Correctional Center: Although JCCC is designated as a medium-security
facility, its physical plant is more consistent with that of a minimum-security facility. The only
physical security measure consistent with medium security is the perimeter fence, fence detection
system and new 42-bed segregated housing unit. The room door-locking mechanisms in Housing
Unit 6 have been removed due to consistent malfunctions, and all other general population areas
are open dormitories. In essence, the facility’s interior should be considered minimum security
and its perimeter medium security.
MGT found a number of problems with JCCC’s physical plant:


the facility was not originally designed to be an adult correctional center.



about 32.6 percent of its inmates are housed in buildings constructed more
than 70 years ago.



JCCC is designated as a medium-security facility, and yet has no general
population cells or rooms with operating door locks, normally a required
component of such a facility.



the facility’s only physical design elements that are consistent with nationally
recognized medium-security standards and practices are the reinforced
perimeter fence and a new 42-bed segregated housing unit.



JCCC’s minimum-security unit is a converted storage building. Its bed layout
has been adjusted to avoid numerous leaks in the roof.



half of the center’s buildings require roof repairs.
Page 6-14

Institutional Operations & Support Services

In addition, JCCC’s kitchen is more than 80 years old, and needs a new boiler. Its size and
production capability is inadequate for the number of inmates it must feed, and its equipment is
antiquated. Furthermore, the physical design of the kitchen and dining area creates security
problems as well as health and safety issues. Long inmate waiting lines to enter the dining room
extend outside of the building; limited preparation and storage space affect the quality and
efficiency of food preparation; and blind spots in the facility raise safety and security concerns.
A review of capital outlay requests at James Crabtree reflect a number of items that have been
requested annually since 1999, including roofing repairs, aa new kitchen, door replacements and
security upgrades.
Roof repairs and construction of a kitchen and dining area must occur in the immediate future if
DOC is to maintain health and safety standards.

Summary of Recommendations
MGT’s review of capital outlay requests and its visual inspections found a number of physical
plant problems that have been identified repeatedly for years as requiring repair, replacement or
upgrades. The most common capital needs at the institutions surveyed were roof repairs and
electrical system upgrades. Other areas that require attention are wastewater treatment plants,
boilers, kitchen and dining room facilities and emergency generators.
To ensure that these projects are prioritized based on departmental needs and staff and inmate
health and safety, MGT strongly recommends that DOC include a review of its capital needs in
the master plan project recommended in Chapter 3 of this report. An assessment of each
institution’s critical needs and infrastructure should be completed to determine the long-term
costs and benefits of continued operation of older facilities versus replacement. Only a
comprehensive analysis by experienced criminal justice architects and engineers can yield this
information.
Among other items:
Recommendation 6-10. DOC should identify alternative options other than continuing
to add additional units at OSP, and give serious consideration to closing its existing
housing units. Any further expansion will only place more strain on an aging
infrastructure that is operating well beyond its designed capacity.
Recommendation 6-11. DOC should consider replacing OSR’s C Unit with a new
living unit on property available near Unit B. The current location affects the facility’s
efficiency and security supervision.
Recommendation 6-12. DOC should consider creating a separate maximum-security
general population facility to meet its space needs. In summer 1973, OSP’s inmate
population at OSP was 2,200; as of August 13, 2007, it was 1,237. Thus the number of
maximum-security beds has fallen by more than 56 percent in the past 34 years. In view
of the reported number of inmate classification overrides from maximum to medium
security, and the reduction in the number of available maximum-security beds, DOC
should consider additional maximum-security beds as a high priority.
Page 6-15

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Recommendation 6-13. Abandoned buildings at OSP should be demolished, provided
historical preservation issues are not violated. DOC should focus on immediately
removing the East and West cellhouses, as they present safety, security and health risks to
staff and inmates.
Recommendation 6-14. DOC should continue its efforts to provide a consistent
physical security approach that addresses JCCC’s designated security level of the
facility.
Recommendation 6-15. DOC should prioritize JCCC’s capital request of $3,151,463 to
construct a new kitchen and dining hall.

Page 6-16

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Security Equipment
Any penal institution must provide its security staff with emergency equipment. An adequate
amount of security equipment (weapons, riot shields, riot batons, restraints, radios, gas munitions,
protective vests, etc.) is the best safeguard for staff safety when they enter into dangerous
situations harm. And the equipment must be kept in optimum working condition.
MGT surveyed security equipment at each institution and found that deficiencies that have been
identified are being addressed. The overall amount and condition of DOC’s essential security
equipment is acceptable.
In focus groups held at each facility, line staff were generally happy with their security
equipment. The most common complaint heard concerned was the condition of their radios, both
the handheld models and the radios installed in security vehicles. MGT’s examination of the
handheld radios validated these complaints; at several locations, they were not in optimum
working condition. Staff members complained of short battery life, limited range and poor
reception.
Staff at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary staff reported that their two-way security radios are
limited in supply. They reported that staff members often bring their own two-way radios are into
the institution to supplement the existing communication system. These commercial security
radios, however, do not have a scrambling channel that protects communications from being
overhead by persons outside the facility.
OSP’s warden indicated that the penitentiary recently was approved to purchase additional
security radios. As a result, the use of private two-way radios should be reduced.

Summary of Recommendation
Recommendation 6-16 ODC should develop a strategic plan to upgrade its radio
systems. This effort should begin = with a survey of all correctional facilities to
determine the radio equipment available at each facility; its condition and capabilities;
and the future needs of each facility based on its mission and capacity. Future budget
requests and purchases should be based on this plan. The use of commercial grade radios
should be eliminated.

Page 6-17

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Private Prison Operations
State law gives DOC’s director responsibility for monitoring of private prisons and jails in
Oklahoma. DOC’s Private Prisons, Jails and Safety Administration Unit provides direct daily
oversight of these private facilities under the direction of the Division of Field Operations. DOC
policy OP-030401 specifies policies and procedures for private prison monitoring.
The general responsibilities of the Private Prisons, Jails and Safety Administration Unit include
procurement, proposal development and contract monitoring. At least one contract monitor is
assigned to each private prison and is responsible for monitoring its compliance with state
standards. Private Prisons, Jails and Safety Administration is administered by a qualified
correctional professional with experience in both public and private corrections.
Davis Correctional Facility: The Corrections Corporation of America’s (CCA’s) Davis
Correctional Facility (DCF) is a privately owned and operated correctional facility that has
provided secure housing for inmates sentenced to DOC since 1996. DCF has four units that house
960 medium-custody offenders and one unit that houses 50 minimum-custody inmates. The four
medium-custody housing units each hold 240 inmates in 120 double cells. The minimum-custody
housing unit has 50 double-bunk beds in an open-bay dormitory. DCF also maintains a 40-bed
segregated housing unit and four infirmary beds.
DCF’s primary mission is to house medium- and minimum-custody male offenders. The facility
appears appropriate for these custody levels. Programming at the facility includes multi-level
academic educational opportunities, vocational technology training, a cognitive restructuring
program, religious programming, a canine training program, a substance abuse training program
and library services.
DCF had an average vacancy rate of 9.2 percent in fiscal 2006. It employed a total of 218
employees in that year, of which 82 were hired during the year and 83 left.
DCF contracts with the department at an average rate of $49 per day per offender. The current
contract expires in June 2008. It mandates that CCA must pay the first $70,000 for each medical
event. After that, DOC and CCA split the remaining costs 70 percent /30 percent, respectively.
The facility has broken ground on a new 660-bed addition that will be located next to the existing
facility. Six hundred of those beds will house medium- or maximum-custody offenders. The
remaining 60 beds are for segregated housing. All of the beds in the new addition are designed for
double occupancy.
Lawton Correctional Center: The Geo Group’s Lawton Correctional Center first opened in July
1998, and in August 2006 added two 304-bed housing units, bringing its total operating capacity
to 2,526. The center is Oklahoma’s largest correctional center, public or private. Inmates are
housed in double-occupancy cells.
The facility was designed to meet the standards of the Commission on Accreditation of the
American Correctional Association (ACA), and received re-accreditation status from the ACA in
December 2006. Its physical plant appears appropriate for the custody level of the inmates
assigned to it. Most inmates assigned to the Lawton Correctional Facility are medium- or
minimum-security general population inmates. The facility also provides housing for up to 304
Page 6-18

Institutional Operations & Support Services

medium-security protective custody inmates. On the date of MGT’s site visit, 2,508 inmates were
residing at the facility.
In all, Lawton has nine inmate housing units, an administration building, a support building and
an employee training center, which is located outside the secure perimeter. Six of the nine
housing units are identical in design and each has a secure, elevated control center surrounded by
five two-level pods providing double-occupancy cells. The two new units are identical and
contain a secure elevated control center surrounded by three two-level pods. The remaining
housing unit is an 82-bed linear design unit with a secure control center located at one end. This
unit currently houses inmates in segregation status, with pending disciplinary hearings or refusing
a housing or cell assignment. The expansion completed in August 2006 also added a gymnasium
and a satellite dining area.
Lawton’s primary mission is to house medium-custody male inmates. Its programming includes a
wide variety of services including multilevel educational opportunities, both academic and
vocational; a cognitive behavior program; correctional industries; religious programming; and
library services. Staff reported that more than 80 percent of eligible inmates were actively
involved in programs and/or work assignments.
The facility has an authorized staffing level of 474.5 employees, based on a staffing analysis
conducted by staff from the office of Field Operations. Current staffing, at 431, reflects a 9
percent vacancy rate.
During fiscal 2006, serious incidents reported at the institution occurred at a rate of 0.56 per 100
inmates, compared to 0.21 per 100 inmates for state-operated facilities. Thus the Lawton
Correctional Center had a serious incident report average about 2.5 times higher than that for
state-operated facilities, and higher than the levels experienced by the other private prisons. Two
inmate homicides have occurred at the facility in the past two years.
Cimarron Correctional Facility: DOC’s third contract prison, CCA’s Cimarron Correctional
Facility, is a 970-bed male facility housing medium- and minimum-security inmates. This facility
is being expanded, with 660 medium-security beds to be added by June 2008. The facility has a
number of program opportunities involving education, therapy, religion and recreation. In
addition, it operates a behavior modification program.
Cimarron had a 6 percent employee vacancy during fiscal 2006, with a total of 107 employees
hired and 127 terminated during the year. Cimarron currently has 219 employees, of which 16 are
health services employees.

Operational Assessment
The use of privatized prisons has proven to be a valuable asset for Oklahoma, providing housing
and program opportunities to more than 4,500 inmates at any given time. The correctional
facilities are newer, well-maintained facilities; each was designed to meet ACA standards and
have maintained their accreditation. Their physical plants and designs are some of the best in the
state.

Page 6-19

Institutional Operations & Support Services

According to the Private Prisons, Jails and Safety administrator, all three prisons have functioned
well and are responsive to deficiencies when they occur. Inmates housed at all three facilities are
engaged in a variety of programming.
Private Prisons, Jails and Safety Administration staff indicated that there are some notable
differences in the way private prisons operate compared public facilities.
The first difference is the level of staff turnover (Exhibit 6-6).
EXHIBIT 6-6
Fiscal 2006 Staffing Turnover, Public vs. Private Prisons
Total Staff

New Hires

Terminations

Capacity

Public
- OSR
- James Crabtree

196
165

32
16

37
19

1,041
886

Private
- Cimarron
- Davis

219
218

107
82

127
83

966
1,000

Source: Department of Corrections and MGT of America.

Exhibit 6-6 identifies the total number of staff, number of new hires, terminations and inmate
population for four facilities, tow public and two private, during fiscal 2006. The facilities
selected were similar in population, total staffing and security level.
The number of new hires for the two private prisons averaged 94.5 during the year, compared to
24 for the two public prisons. The private prisons averaged almost four times the number of new
hires compared to the public facilities. The number of terminations also was drastically different;
the two private prisons averaged 105 terminations during fiscal 2006, compared to an average of
28 for the public prisons.
Turnover rates have a direct impact on facility operations. Working in a correctional facility is a
highly stressful job that requires time for new employees to adjust and learn operational
procedures. The time required to learn all facets of the job often extends beyond the formal
training period.
An experienced line staff, properly trained, plays a valuable role. Experienced staff members can
spend more time enforcing policy and resolving issues. Through time on the job, seasoned staff
gain valuable experience in defusing various situations. Although the number of staff available in
a prison is important, experience is perhaps more important; relying on inexperienced line staff to
manage medium-security inmates inevitably will lead to a higher number of incidents.
Today’s correctional environment requires correctional officers to possess exceptional
communication skills. A significant part of their role of is to enforce policy and maintain order
through effective communication with inmates and other staff members; the better the
communication skills, the fewer serious incidents will occur. Developing these verbal skills in a
Page 6-20

Institutional Operations & Support Services

stressful and challenging environment is a difficult task. Training programs should assist new
staff in developing and refining this essential skill.
In its direct observations, the review team saw varying levels of communication between staff
and inmates. MGT saw that communications between inmates and staff at the private facilities
were significantly less frequent and effective than those observed at the public facilities. Staff
interviewed who have worked both at private and public facilities verified these impressions.
Issues that would routinely be resolved through ongoing communication in a public facility may
not always be resolved as well in the private prisons.
The two private facilities, combined, averaged a 42 percent retention rate during fiscal 2006,
compared to 13.3 percent at the two public facilities. The reliance on a high number of
inexperienced employees may have a direct impact on the number of serious incidents occurring
at the facility.
In fiscal 2006, the private prisons had an average of 0.42 serious incidents per 100 inmates, twice
the public prisons’ rate of 0.21 per 100 inmates (Exhibit 6-7).
EXHIBIT 6-7
Serious Incident Report Comparison
Serious Incident Reports per 100 Inmates FY 2005 FY 2006
Private Prisons
.37
.42
Public Prisons
.23
.21
Source: MGT of America.

The more frequently that serious incidents occur at a facility, the higher the demand for
segregation beds. On November 13, 2007, five public facilities and one private facility operating
segregation units were at capacity. Some of the institutions reviewed required additional
segregation space while others did not.
At the time of our review, the Oklahoma State Reformatory’s 42-bed segregated housing unit was
full and had a waiting list of seven inmates. Staff reported that inmates committing the least
severe offenses and inmates refusing housing assignments are placed on the waiting list when
needed. On November 13, 2007, OSR had four vacant segregation beds. The Oklahoma State
Reformatory had the highest number of assaults on staff per 100 inmates during fiscal 2006 for a
publicly operated facility.
MGT’s observations and staff interviews also indicate that the number of segregation beds
available at Lawton Correctional Facility is insufficient. At Lawton, 7.2 percent of available beds
are designated for segregated housing, the highest percentage in any facility other than Oklahoma
State Penitentiary. Staff members reported that, due to its population size and type, its number of
misconduct reports and the waiting period to transfer inmates from Lawton, its segregation unit is
usually full. During fiscal 2006, the unit used alternative sanctions other than segregation for lesssevere and first-time offenses, to control the demand for segregated housing. Staff reported that
inmates often remain in the Segregated Housing Unit awaiting transfer for more than 120 days,
delays that have a direct impact on the availability of segregation beds at the facility.
Page 6-21

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Prison Gangs
Prison gangs were formally recognized as security threats as early as the 1970s in California.
Since that time, prison gangs have become highly organized criminal organizations that are
present in all prison systems across the country. Ample evidence suggests that these gangs are
operating criminal enterprises outside of the prison walls in all major metropolitan areas in the
U.S. Loose-knit groups of offenders who banded together to protect each other inside prison have
become very sophisticated criminal operations, both inside and outside the prison boundaries.
Prison gangs, or “security threat groups” as they are called in corrections jargon, initially were
formed by members of a particular ethnic group or race to control criminal activities within a
prison, such as drug trafficking, extortion, violence and prostitution. Such criminal activities
definitely pose a threat to the security and safety of other inmates and staff and are disruptive to
orderly management.
These gangs often use brutality to discourage other offenders and even staff members who
interfere with their activities. Their organization is very hierarchical, with a military command
structure. Most prison gangs will only accept new members who pledge an oath to the gang and
agree to a “blood in—blood out” covenant. This means that a prospective member will shed
blood at the prison gang’s direction to prove their allegiance, and will have their blood shed
should they turn against the gang. Prison gangs enforce this covenant rigidly to send a clear
message to member that defecting is not an option without serious consequences.
Numerous prison systems have formally recognized the existence of security threat groups
(STGs) and have developed strategies for their management. One commonly employed strategy
makes gang membership a serious disciplinary violation, to discourage prospective recruits from
joining. Another strategy crucial to the successful management of this population is the
identification of each gang and its members. Once these identifications are made, correctional
system administrators must closely monitor gang members to curtail or eliminate their disruptive
behaviors.
In 1993, in recognition of the threat that inmate gangs represented to corrections environments,
the U.S. Justice Department authorized and funded the National Major Gang Task Force
(NMGTF). NMGTF provides leadership and information for the criminal justice system and other
stakeholders to minimize the effects of security threat groups, gangs and terrorists in jails, prisons
and communities. This group networks, trains and has established information-sharing standards
with all stakeholders.
ODC, however, has a policy of not formally recognizing gangs or individuals affiliated with
them. As a result, it has no preventive measures or statewide, coordinated intelligence in place to
address their impact on daily operations. During fiscal 2006, six inmate homicides in DOC were
the direct result of gang influence.
ODC staff confirmed that gangs have a negative influence on the daily operations. Every
segregation unit has inmates housed as a result of refusing a housing assignment, and most of
these refusals are the result of gang activity.

Page 6-22

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Although DOC does not have a gang intelligence unit, it has developed a proposed gang
intelligence policy that is being reviewed internally, and recently appointed a gang intelligence
officer in the Central Office Internal Affairs Unit.
Current approaches to gangs, then, vary by facility. For instance:


the chief of security at Joe Harp Correctional Center keeps a list of suspected
gang members and their gang affiliations on an erasable board in the security
office. He does his best to track the activities of offenders he believes are gang
members, but admits this is difficult without a gang intelligence officer to
collect reliable information.



At Lexington Assessment & Reception Center, security administrators
acknowledge that they have gangs, the most active being Hispanic in origin.
They are mostly involved in introducing tobacco, drugs and cell phones into
the facility. LARC’s chief of security said that at least one recent inmate
assault on another inmate at LARC was directly attributable to gang
involvement.



The staff at the Jess Dunn Correctional Center has developed an ad hoc
software program to track gang members at its facility. The staff who
developed this software have other full-time assignments, but volunteered
their services for the project. They fill out confirmation forms on gang
members at JDCC and notify shift officers when intelligence reveals that gang
activities are imminent. They cannot, however, share their data electronic with
other DOC facilities. They do try to call the receiving facility when a
confirmed gang member is transferred, and want to devote more time to
intelligence.



Females committed to the DOC generally are not prone to becoming gang
members. Still, officials at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center monitor
mail and phone calls to identify any female offenders who might be involved
with a gang.



The warden, deputy wardens, and chief of security at GEO’s Lawton
Correctional Center expressed frustration with the lack of any departmental
approach to managing gangs above the facility level. The facility has a
dedicated security threat group (STG) sergeant and a systemic approach to
monitoring inmates suspected of gang activity. In the absence of such an
effort, it is difficult to track the various characteristics of prison gangs—
associations, correspondence, visits, tattoos, contraband, etc.
A large percentage of inmates housed at Lawton appear to have gang
affiliations. Within the past two years, two inmate homicides directly related
to gang activity have occurred at the facility. Staff said that the presence of
gangs has a definite impact on daily operations, citing assaults, inmate
incidents, contraband and housing placements in both protective custody and
segregation.
Lawton has responded by assigning a correctional sergeant to gang
intelligence. This officer gathers gang intelligence information from staff
members, law enforcement and the inmates, and maintains a personal record
Page 6-23

Institutional Operations & Support Services

of information collected, but has no access to any networked intelligence
system. Lawton primarily gathers intelligence information in response to
incidents, obtaining very little advance information.


Managers at the Oklahoma State Reformatory also acknowledged gang
activity at their facility, but have done little to develop an effective response.
The facility does not have a dedicated security threat group officer or a
systematic approach to monitoring gang activity. During the past year, OSR
has had two deaths and one serious inmate assault related to gangs.



CCA’s Davis Correctional Facility has a full-time officer tracking gang
members, confirming membership and collecting gang intelligence. This
position is approved by DOC and is listed as required staffing in the operating
contract. Davis has 226 confirmed gang members and 24 suspected members.
The STG officer uses CCA software to track gang activities and members. The
program has all the fields needed to completely capture the pertinent
information on each gang member. It also includes a photograph of each gang
member and photos of all gang tattoos on each member’s body.
According to the STG officer, most of the offenders report their gang
affiliation when they arrive at the facility. He also said that he receives no
formal communication with DOC on STG matters, although he gathers some
information by combing through unit manager notes in each newly arrived
inmate’s file.



OSP has no management plan for dealing with gangs. The administration
recognizes the presence of gang members at its facility and their involvement
with contraband. But OSP has not dedicated any security personnel to gather
and manage gang intelligence. Employees said that DOC investigators gather
some data and disseminate information as needed to institutional personnel.
Considering that OSP is the state’s only male maximum-security facility, and
manages a large number of inmates in administrative segregation, disciplinary
segregation and protective custody, an effective intelligence gathering system
could be hugely beneficial for its mission. It does not have one.

According to the National Major Gang Task Force, more than two-thirds of all state corrections
agencies have a recognized gang intelligence unit. DOC reportedly is taking initial steps
including the development of a proposed operational policy and the appointment of a gang
intelligence officer under the leadership of the Internal Affairs Division.

Page 6-24

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Summary of Recommendation
Recommendation 6-17. DOC should formally recognize the existence of gangs in its
facilities by developing a central gang intelligence unit to identify, assess and
coordinate information related to gang members or activities. DOC should develop a
comprehensive gang intelligence system, including dedicated staffing and training, an
electronic data system and both intra- and interagency coordination, to track and manage
potential security threats. This system would provide the department with the names and
profiles of offenders affiliated with each recognized security threat group, their housing,
assignment and criminal history. These data would be available to approved DOC staff.
The department should seek assistance from national associations and the National
Institute of Corrections in developing its system.

Page 6-25

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Program Services
Programmed activities within a prison system are very important to curb inmate idleness and to
provide inmates with job training, educational opportunities and rehabilitation services, and to
obtain useful institutional labor. MGT surveyed program activities at each DOC facility it
reviewed and was impressed by the number and variety of programs DOC offers.
Educational opportunities included literacy education, adult basic education, a General
Equivalency Degree, college courses and Career Tech. Career Tech provides vocational training
at most DOC facilities. Other activities included cognitive behavior restructuring programs,
substance abuse education and therapy, sex offender therapy, religious services and life skills and
re-entry programs.
Work activities within DOC include Agri-Services, Oklahoma Correctional Industries and
employment in traditional support areas within each institution such as laundry, food service and
maintenance.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-18. DOC should continue to annually assess its existing array of
programming to determine whether each is cost-effective and achieving its desired
results. Those programs that are not efficient and effective should be eliminated. For
instance, DOC should work with the state employment office to see what jobs are in the
highest demand and tailor its training to meet those needs. We reviewed documents
concerning department evaluations of selected programs, but saw no evidence of
comprehensive evaluations.
Recommendation 6-19. DOC should ensure that each institution has the resources,
including adequate space and staff, to maximize the availability of programming
opportunities. For example, the Eddie Warrior and Jim Hamilton center need more
programming space, while Jess Dunn and Eddie Warrior need more staff to make their
program offerings effective. Both institutions have a shortage of teachers in their
educational programs that limits the number of offenders enrolled in these classes.

Page 6-26

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Classification
Chapter 4 of this report provides a detailed analysis of the reliability and validity of the
classification system DOC uses to place and house its inmates. This section assesses how the
system works from an operational viewpoint.
The Oklahoma DOC, like most state correctional departments, has developed a classification
system to evaluate the security risks posed by individual inmates and assign them to appropriate
institutional placements. The system assigns numerical values to risk factors such as the nature of
the offense, length of sentence, escape and disciplinary history, age, etc. A higher total score
corresponds to a more restrictive custody level.
The DOC uses the unit management model, which assigns a unit manager and case managers to
each housing unit. Staffing varies somewhat among housing units, with each case manager
responsible for a caseload whose size is largely determined by the number of inmates housed in
the unit. The case managers track each inmate’s program and work activities, file misconduct
reports and assist in searches, escorts and other security-related jobs. The unit manager and a case
managers screen each newly admitted inmate on the date of their arrival.
A facility classification committee validates the custody level assigned to each inmate by the
Lexington Assessment and Reception Center by examining the field file and any other
information available, and assigns minimum, medium or maximum classifications based on an
objective point scale that DOC has use for several years.
As noted in Chapter 4, classification personnel can override system scores when, in their
judgment, the custody level indicated is inappropriate. These overrides can move an inmate into
either a more-restrictive or less-restrictive custody assignment. Classification managers monitor
the use of overrides level to ensure their appropriateness. An override rate exceeding 10 to 15
percent may indicate either that overrides are being used inappropriately, or that the classification
system itself may not accurate.
In reviewing the validity of overrides at each facility, we found that DOC classification staff tend
to use overrides from maximum to medium more frequently than typical classification protocols
would allow. (Chapter 4 presents a more detailed analysis of this issue.) These overrides are
usually justified in the file by the statement “suitable for medium custody” without any additional
information. Many DOC classification employees shared our concern that these overrides are
simply a response to the system’s ongoing shortage of maximum-security beds.
The unit records office assigns inmate housing according to the custody designation. Inmates are
routinely assigned to cells randomly some specific reason precludes it; for instance, if it appears
the inmate cannot live with peaceably with a member of a particular race. Within ten days of the
arrival, inmates undergo a thorough facility orientation and can apply for jobs, which are assigned
based on demand and availability.
An initial review of an inmate’s classification takes place immediately upon their arrival at the
facility. This constitutes an audit of all classification actions taken on the inmate to that time,
including computation of credits earned and lost toward reduction of his or her time to serve.
Classification staff subsequently reviews the inmate every 120 days, and performs an annual
review if the inmate remains at the facility that long. Between these reviews, classification staff
Page 6-27

Institutional Operations & Support Services

updates the hard-copy record and the Offender Management System (OMS), the data system that
tracks inmate histories, to reflect program and work assignments, misconduct and changes in
credit earning level. In addition, they enter age changes as a factor in scoring for custody levels.
OMS does not automatically recalculate these scores on the inmate’s birthday, as do most similar
systems in the U.S.
The case managers prepare a “transfer packet” on each inmate as they become eligible for
transfer to another institution. These packets routinely exceed 20 pages, and duplicate information
available in OMS. The packets are sent to the warden and, if approved, are then forwarded to
DOC’s Population Management Office at Lexington for final review. If approved there, the
institution receives authority to make the transfer.
Classification case managers must work extensively with OMS, and expressed a great deal of
frustration with the system. They must spend significant time making entries into OMS and
correcting data already in the system Their lack of confidence in the accuracy of the system, and
its complexity, result in a tremendous amount of manual work that could be performed much
more efficiently on a properly designed and maintained automated system, operated by trained
employees.
As a result of OMS’ deficiencies, facility case managers often feel overwhelmed by their
workload and are convinced their caseloads are too large. In reality, these caseloads that are not
out of line with those of other state correctional departments, but difficulties with OMS greatly
complicate their task.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-20. DOC should develop or purchase a data system that
automatically recalculates inmate assessment scores as variables are entered. This
would save case managers a tremendous amount of time since they would no longer have
to compute these scores manually each month. In addition, they must spend a significant
amount of their time tracking minimum eligibility dates for inmates in their caseloads,
both manually and through the current automated system, since the inmate’s age,
program completions and other variables cause these dates to change. This part of the
process is not automated and results in considerable inefficiencies and a very high
potential for errors.
Recommendation 6-21. DOC should develop or purchase an effective automated
system to assist case managers and population management officers. The case
managers must spend at least an hour preparing a transfer packet for each inmate on their
caseload who transfers to another facility for any reason. These transfer packets contain
several documents maintained in the field file and/or on OMS. All transfer requests flow
through the Population Office at Lexington Reception and Assessment Center. Without
the information contained in the transfer packets, the population management officers
would have insufficient information for their decisions.

Page 6-28

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Recommendation 6-22. DOC should take immediate steps to address the overuse of
classification overrides in its facilities for population management. This phenomenon is
particularly evident in connection with maximum-custody bed space, the primary cause
of overrides throughout the system.. Future expansions in department bed capacity must
take into account the custody makeup and security needs of its population.

Page 6-29

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Violence Levels
DOC tracks data on assaults and other violence in its facilities with medical reports, serious
incident reports filed by security officers and information provided by the private contractors.
DOC operational policy OP060125, section 4 , under the Acts Constituting Rule Violations
clearly identifies different types of battery as either Class X or A rule violations.
Exhibit 6-8 identifies the number of serious incidents and assaults on staff reported for each
institution in 2006.
EXHIBIT 6-8
Serious Incidents and Assaults on Staff Reported For Each Institution
Facility
Bill Johnson
Dick Connor
Eddie Warrior
Howard McLeod
Jackie Brannon
James Crabtree
Jess Dunn
Jim E. Hamilton
John Lilley
Joseph Harp
Lexington
Mabel Bassett
Mack Alford
Northeastern Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Oklahoma State Reformatory
William S. Key

Fiscal 2006
Assaults on Staff Inmate Homicides
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
8
2
1
4
3
2
1
-

Davis Correctional Center
Cimarron Correctional Center
Lawton Correctional Center
Total

5
3
39
78

1
1
6

Serious Incidents
2
31
12
4
6
3
16
21
9
26
68
56
16
10
45
19
12
28
43
127
554

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The facilities with the highest number of assaults on staff during fiscal 2006 were the Lawton
Correctional Center, Mabel Bassett and Davis Correctional Facility. Lawton is the largest facility
in the state, housing a thousand more inmates than any other facility. Mabel Bassett is a female
facility that provides housing for all security levels and Davis is a privately operated mediumsecurity facility.

Page 6-30

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Based on DOC data, the average number of serious incidents per 100 inmates in fiscal 2006 was
0.42 for the private prisons and 0.21 for the public facilities; in other words, there were twice as
many serious incidents per 100 inmates in private prisons than in public prisons. The facility with
the highest reported number of serious incidents, however, was the Lawton Correctional Center.
DOC had six reported inmate homicides in fiscal 2006, all of them in medium-security facilities.
The state tied with California, who has a prisoner population seven times larger than Oklahoma’s,
for the highest number of reported inmate homicides in that year, according to the Association of
State Correctional Administrators (ASCA).
For comparison purposes Exhibit 6-9 examines the data collected from the states by the
Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) for systems with average daily
populations (ADPs) within 10 percent of DOC’s that reported an inmate homicide during the
period. July 1, 2006 – May 1, 2007. Oklahoma’s homicide record far exceeded those of similarly
sized systems.
EXHIBIT 6-9
Reported Inmate Homicides

State
Alabama
Indiana
Maryland
Mississippi
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Oklahoma

July 1, 2006 – May 1, 2007
ADP Number of Inmate Homicides
24,170
0
24,068
0
23,000
3
21,146
0
23,313
2
22,723
0
24,126
6

Source: Association of State Correctional Administrators.

Six inmate homicides occurring in a state correctional agency during fiscal 2006 is an extremely
high level of serious violence, even in comparison with state systems housing more than 100,000
inmates.
According to Internal Affairs Unit investigators and facility management staff, most inmate
homicides in Oklahoma appear to be directly related to gang influence. As noted above, DOC has
no centralized gang intelligence system.
Several factors may be influencing the amount of violence and number of serious incidents in
DOC facilities. The factors include:


The lack of a centralized gang intelligence unit;



limited staffing in the facilities; and



overcrowded conditions in most facilities, resulting in a high number of
inmates being housed in facilities inconsistent with their scored classification
level.
Page 6-31

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Each of these areas must be addressed to reduce violence.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-23. As recommended above, DOC should establish a centralized
intelligence unit with support personnel assigned to each major facility to gather
intelligence information on the inmate population. This would help DOC reduce or
eliminate major incidents in its facilities and employ strategies and initiatives based on a
thorough assessment of current security risks.
Recommendation 6-24. DOC should deploy sufficient security staff at each facility to
ensure that collateral responsibilities such as cell searches and inmate shakedowns are
completed regularly and consistently.
Recommendation 6-25. DOC should increase its number of male beds to ensure that
inmates are housed at appropriate security levels and at occupancy rates consistent
with best operational practices.
Recommendation 6-26. DOC should ensure that assaults on inmates are defined
consistently and reported by all facilities. Our review of DOC data indicated that there is
inconsistency between divisions on how this data element is measured. For example, the
number of assaults on inmates reported by medical staff is not consistent with the number
of assaults reported by security.
Recommendation 6-27. DOC should track assaults on inmates separately instead of
combining them with other incidents. At present, assaults on inmates are folded into a
“serious incidents” category. This data collection methodology does not permit a full
review and analysis of what is occurring in the department in the area of violence.

Page 6-32

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Inmate Transfer Backlogs
Again, all adult offenders admitted to DOC are received at the Lexington Assessment &
Receiving Center. LARC has an operating capacity of 379 male reception beds and 39 female
beds.
LARC receives between 40 and 60 inmates each day, Tuesday through Friday. Male inmates
remain in the intake unit for an average of nine days and females for an average of five days. The
actual length of stay depends upon the number and gender of inmates received each day. As
inmates enter LARC, others must be transferred out; on a typical day, 40 to 60 inmates enter
intake, 20 to 30 inmates are transferred to other facilities and another 20 to 30 are moved
internally within LARC.
Each week, Lexington staff identifies the number of inmates scheduled for intake and reception
and determines the number of inmates that should be transferred out of the facility. Staff assigned
to the population office determine initial facility assignments and review all transfer packets
received from each facility. These reviews include transfer requests for all levels of placement.
Transfers from LARC receive priority over intra-institutional transfer requests due to the limited
bed space available at the center and its constant daily intake.
The most dynamic variable involved in determining transfers is the 72-hour “Invoke” rule.
Oklahoma state law requires DOC to receive inmates from each county within 72 hours of
whenever the county reaches its rated capacity. As of August 29, 2007, LARC had received 5,792
inmates during the calendar year, about 12 percent of them the result of the 72-hour rule.
The DOC had exceeded 97 percent of its rated capacity as of November 5, 2007. Operating above
this level makes it difficult for the population office to provide appropriate housing, either for
newly assigned inmates or those requiring internal transfers. When segregated housing is
excluded, including administrative, protective custody, death row, disciplinary and medical beds,
bed space becomes extremely limited. As a result, as noted earlier, a high percentage of
classification overrides are approved to ensure that inmates qualify for housing wherever bed
space is available.
This practice mixes populations of various risk levels, and when it results in moving high-custody
offenders to lower custody levels, it will eventually lead to violent incidents. The practice, then,
puts inmates and staff in unsafe situations unnecessarily.
Exhibit 6-10 identifies the number of inmates awaiting transfer as of September 3, 2007.

Page 6-33

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-10
Inmates Waiting for Transfer, September 3, 2007*

Male
Maximum security inmates waiting medium security:

Female

127

NOTE: Of the 127 males awaiting medium placement,
25 are requesting Lawton CF Protective Custody placement.

Medium security (private prison) inmates waiting minimum
security placement:
Medium security (county jail) inmates waiting minimum
security placement:
Medium security (public) inmates waiting minimum security
placement:
Sub-total
Minimum security inmates waiting community corrections
center placement:
Minimum security inmates waiting work center placement:
Community corrections inmates waiting halfway house
placement:
Community corrections inmates waiting GPS placement:
Sub-total
Total Inmates pending transfer

83
56
138
404

9
9

94
39

53
27

124
0
257
661

0
0
80
89

Approved reported transfer packets as of this date.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The largest group of inmates with approved transfer packets is waiting for transfer to minimumsecurity placement. At the time of MGT’s review, 277 male inmates were waiting for bed space
in minimum security; 127 for medium placements; and 124 for halfway house placements. In all,
661 male inmates were awaiting transfer to a different security level, as were 89 females. The
limited availability of beds and priority given to LARC transfer inmates creates a constant
backlog. Department staff report waiting periods of from 90 days to two years.

Summary of Recommendation
Recommendation 6-28. DOC should secure enough funding to expand the number of
beds available at the various security levels to meet the department’s needs and reduce
extensive waiting periods.

Page 6-34

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Use of Facility Space
MGT teams visited 11 of DOC’s 17 correctional institutions as well as two private prisons. MGT
assessed the use of existing space to determine whether current space is being used appropriately
and if sufficient space is available for the department’s needs. The review involved
documentation, interviews and direct inspections.
Exhibit 6-11 illustrates DOC’s rated capacity and inmate population as of November 5, 2007, as
well as the housing provided to all inmates except for those assigned to the jail program, GPS
monitoring or PPCS, housed in outside hospitals or housed at the time of review in out of state
facilities.
EXHIBIT 6-11
Capacity and Population by Facility Type and Gender
As of November 5, 2007
DOC
Institutions
- Male
- Female

Capacity Count Available Percent of Capacity
20,628
20,069*
347
97.3
18,662
18,271
179
97.9
1,966
1,798
168
91.45

Community Correctional Centers
- Male
- Female

2,285
1,925
360

2,238
1,888
350

47
37
10

97.94
98.08
97.22

Halfway House
- Male
- Female

1,433
1,239
194

1,312
1,170
142

121
69
52

91.56
94.51
73.20

Total

24,346

23,619

515

97.01

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The largest share of available beds was in female halfway houses, which had a 26.8 percent
vacancy rate. The smallest percentage of available beds was at male community correctional
centers, where fewer than 2 percent of beds were available. No type had bed space available for
more than 180 inmates.
The institution capacities shown in Exhibit 6-11 do not include 42 infirmary beds or four TB
beds, but do count all segregation beds. Five male institutions have prototype units that were
designed specifically by the department to house this particular population. These segregation
units were built in the past three years and are not counted in the capacity recorded on the DOC
daily count sheet but are included here in our analysis.
If all segregation beds are removed from the capacity count, DOC was operating at 103 percent
of capacity for males housed in institutions on November 5.

Page 6-35

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Segregation Beds
DOC does not appear to have an agencywide shortage of segregation beds, but there are shortfalls
at specific institutions (Exhibit 6-12).
EXHIBIT 6-12
Segregation Beds

Institutions
- Male
- Female

Capacity Count % of Overall Capacity
955
549
4.6
911
513
4.9
44
36
2.2

Community Correctional Centers
- Male
- Female

47
27
20

37
21
16

2.1
1.4
5.6

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Two of the institutions visited reported persistent problems with a lack of segregation beds. The
Oklahoma State Reformatory uses a waiting list to place inmates in segregation, since the
segregation unit is generally filled to capacity. Facility staff reported that transfers out of the unit
take as long as 120 days. About 4.1 percent of OSR’s beds are allocated for segregation.
At the Lawton Correctional Center, inmates are released early from segregation or given
alternative sanctions other than segregation placement to keep beds open. At present, 182 beds at
Lawton are designated for segregation housing. Lawton management attempted to expand the
number of segregation beds by converting one pod, Housing Unit 8A with 100 beds, to
administrative segregation. DOC would not approve this decision, however, and the pod was
converted back to general population usage. Administrative segregation inmates previously
housed in the pod at the time were transferred to other facilities. While the pod was used to house
administrative segregation inmates, Lawton was dedicating 11.1 percent of its total beds to
segregated housing; afterward, the percent share fell back to 7.2 percent. The Lawton staff
remains supportive of the expanded use of beds for segregation.
On November 5, 2007, five out of the 16 state-operated institutions with segregation units were at
capacity. The correctional centers at capacity included Mack Alford, William S. Key, Joseph
Harp, Bill Johnson, and Northeastern Oklahoma. Three institutions have fewer than two percent
of their beds designated for segregation.
All the facilities except for the Jackie Brannon Correctional Center have segregated housing
units. Inmates from Jackie Brannon requiring segregation are housed in a segregated housing unit
at Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Forty-two percent of the system’s institutional segregation beds
are located at OSP and Lawton. The remaining 58 percent are located in the other 18 facilities.
Lawton, the largest facility in the state, has 182 dedicated segregation beds; OSP has 247
segregation beds.

Page 6-36

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Shortages of segregated beds may be due to operational practices, the number of misconducts or
the length of time required to transfer inmates out of the facility. The Joseph Harp, William S.
Key, and Northeastern correctional centers all have less than 2 percent of their cells dedicated to
segregation. With a combined capacity of 2,928, they have a total of 42 segregation beds or 1.4
percent of all beds available for segregation placement.
All facilities are experiencing the backlog of transfers to alternative facilities. Transfers that affect
segregation housing at most facilities are those to a higher level of security. Staff report that
transfers to higher custody may take more than 120 days; transfers to reduced security may take
up to two years.

Housing Appropriateness
Most of the prison facilities MGT surveyed, both public and private, appear to meet security
requirements for the type and custody of offender they house. As noted above and in Chapter 4,
however, we found that an unusually high share of offenders who scored as maximum custody
were overridden by staff to a lower security level, simply to match the security status of available
beds.
The DOC administrator for Classification and Population reports that 6.8 percent of male inmates
and 2.7 percent of female inmates are in maximum custody. These percentages are well below
national averages. We attribute this low percentage to DOC’s use of classification overrides to
manage bed space.
This practice, particularly when it involves moving high-custody offenders to lower-custody
levels, will eventually result in serious incidents such as assaults on staff, inmates or other
disturbances. It puts inmates and staff in dangerous and unsafe situations unnecessarily.
Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Lawton, James Crabtree and Dick Connor house the highest
number of inmates who are inappropriate for the facility’s security level.
The James Crabtree Correctional Center is a medium-security facility with an operating capacity
of 886, providing housing for inmates over the age of 35. All but 85 of these inmates are medium
security; the rest are minimum-security inmates. The facility was originally established in 1904
and has served as a county high school, junior college, orphanage and a training school for male
juveniles. In July 1982, the facility was transferred to DOC.
The center’s physical plant is consistent with a minimum-security facility. Room door-locking
mechanisms in Housing Unit Six were removed due to consistent malfunctions. All other generalpopulation areas are open dormitories. The center has no general-population rooms or cells that
can be secured. In case of a disturbance, there is no way to isolate the medium-security inmate
population. The only security measure consistent with medium security is the facility perimeter, a
double fence with reinforced razor ribbon on the top and bottom. Staff reported more than 100
inmates housed at the facility wereoriginally classified as maximum-custody inmates.
Oklahoma State Penitentiary provides dormitory-style housing for 90 medium-security inmates in
the basement of a program building. Inmates housed in the dormitory perform institutional
support duties at the facility. The physical space used and number of inmates housed in the
Page 6-37

Institutional Operations & Support Services

dormitory are inconsistent with best practices. Interviews with these inmates indicated that they
may wait up to two years after their transfer has been approved for placement at a mediumsecurity facility.
The Lawton Correctional Center’s physical plant is one of the best in the state. Staff reported that
on June 7, 2007, 16.3 percent of the population had been initially classified as maximum security
but overridden to medium security. On July 3, 2007, out of 350 inmates that scored as maximum
security, 327 had been overridden to medium security—about 13.2 percent of the inmate
population. The following factors strongly suggest that a significant number of Lawton inmates
should be housed at a facility with higher security:


13 to 16 percent classification overrides from maximum custody to medium
custody;



39 assaults on staff during fiscal 2006;



two inmate homicides in the past two years;



127 serious incident reports during fiscal 2006;



182 segregation beds at or near capacity at all times; and



a high number of gang-affiliated inmates.

The Dick Connor Correctional Center has had three inmate homicides in the past two years. This
level of violence is extremely unusual for a facility of this type and security level. Internal Affairs
staff said that all three homicides were separate incidents directly related to gang influence.
Thirty state correctional agencies had one or no inmate homicides over the same time period
according to a U.S. Department of Justice report.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-29. DOC should expand the number of beds available to house
male offenders in correctional facilities and community correctional centers. These
expansions should designed to allow inmate housing at appropriate security levels.
Recommendation 6-30. DOC should move medium-security inmates from any setting
that does not have operational locking systems in its living areas.
Recommendation 6-31. DOC should ensure that every correctional institution
dedicates a minimum of 4 percent of its available bed space to segregated housing.
Recommendation 6-32. DOC administration should immediately examine all
classification overrides to validate the criteria employed. Whenever an override is
invalid, the offender’s classification should be changed to reflect the actual risk and
custody level.
Recommendation 6-33. Transfer the inmates housed in the basement of the old
program building at OSP and convert the area into a program or storage area.

Page 6-38

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Health Care Programs
DOC health care programs include medical, mental health and dental services provided at each
institution, as well as contracted care delivered in the community as needed. Our review focused
on the overall effectiveness of service delivery as well as cost.
Health care programs were the last component of the department to emerge from federal court
supervision in the late 1990s. To meet federal mandates for service, the department increased
spending on health care and attempted to increase health care staffing in the facilities
(Exhibit 6-13).
EXHIBIT 6-13
Medical Spending
$80,000,000

$70,000,000

$60,000,000

$50,000,000

$40,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

From fiscal 2000 to 2007, annual department spending on health care rose from nearly $40
million to more than $72 million, a 72 percent increase. Efforts to improve service quality,
increases in the inmate population, and medical cost inflation were the primary factors driving
this growth. Despite attempts to increase medical staffing, though, medical FTE levels have fallen
since fiscal 2001.

Page 6-39

Institutional Operations & Support Services

EXHIBIT 6-14
Medical Staffing
410

400

390

380

370

360

350

340

330

320
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Increased spending, of course, is not necessarily a valid measure of program quality. Spending
patterns require review alongside the services provided. Unfortunately, little information is
available for comparing prison medical care costs across states.
A number of factors impact prison spending. Prisons have a constitutional requirement to provide
medical care. All inmates must receive minimal comprehensive care, while only select persons
are eligible for Medicaid coverage, significantly reducing the number of covered lives. This
universality of coverage is a significant difference. In addition, the environment for care is
significantly different. Due to security rules, and in part due to safety issues, nurses distribute
most medication in correctional facilities even when the same persons would have taken the
medication on their own as civilians. Such personnel costs account for a significant portion of the
correctional medical budget.
In addition, inmates do not have access to “drug stores” from which they can self-medicate for
minor problems with drugs generally considered safe for the general population. When inmates
need over-the-counter drugs, they generally have to see a nurse raising the cost of care further.
Similarly, civilians with diabetes in the community monitor their blood glucose with portable
machines and adjust their insulin accordingly, while in prisons, a nurse performs this function.
Compared to other correctional departments, DOC’s medical care costs appear very low. At the
time of the 1997 study, Oklahoma had the fourth-lowest per capita cost of all prison medical
programs. In 1997, Oklahoma spent $3.52 per capita per diem, while the national average cost
was $7.15. The total Oklahoma DOC medical budget for 1997, as reported in Corrections
Yearbook was $24,330,969.

Page 6-40

Institutional Operations & Support Services

In 2006, operating expenditures for the medical programs were $32,672,173 and personnel
expenditures were about $15,283,551. Personnel expenditures provided to MGT, however, did
not include benefits including workman’s compensation or insurances. If benefits are included at
40 percent, these personnel costs rise to $21,396,971; total costs are $54,069,144; and the per
capita per diem costs based on a population of 20,000 inmates would be $7.41, about double the
1997 funding. This rate of increase in DOC’s funding, about 8 percent annually over the decade,
is lower than the rate for general medical cost increases in the U.S., which was estimated by the
Kaiser Foundation at 9.8 percent annually from 1970 until 2005.1 The most significant fact
however, is that current per capita funding in Oklahoma is only slightly higher than the national
average prison funding for medical care in 1998.

Quality and Efficiency
As noted above, the 2006 per diem of $7.41 for prison medical care in Oklahoma was about the
same as the national mean expenditures of state prison medical programs for 1997. One critical
issue that has never been studied nationwide, however, is quality of health care delivered
compared to expenditures—in other words, is a low cost of care a result of efficiencies, or
inadequate care? The mere fact that Oklahoma spends $7.41 per inmate per day on health care
does not tell us anything about health outcomes. For this reason, health outcome metrics should
be included in medical program monitoring.
The most readily available, if crude, metric for quality is mortality. This is not, in our opinion, the
best measure of quality, however, because civilian mortality statistics vary across states and
regions, and populations of prisons systems may not be evenly matched for disease prevalence,
acuity levels, age or gender. However poor this proxy for quality may be, though it is at least a
measure of sorts.
The U.S. Department of Justice requires prisons to report mortality and has published a summary
of mortality statistics for the years 2001-2004.2 In that document, Oklahoma ranked 31st of 50
states in mortality per 100,000 inmates, with an annual mortality rate of 234 per 100,000 inmates.
For 2006, total mortality was 85 for a population of about 24,400 inmates. Four of these deaths
were executions. If those four are removed from the analysis, the annualized crude mortality rate
was 332 per 100,000, indicating a 42 percent rise in the mortality rate from the 2001-2004
average.
While these numbers say nothing definitive about health care quality, they do underline the point
that measures of quality should be included in budgetary evaluations to ensure that a reasonable
standard of care is being provided.

Savings Measures
To avoid affecting the quality of care, savings initiatives should focus on reducing waste. Waste
is any unnecessary test, process, delay, transportation, inventory, movement or defective
outcome.3 Focusing on waste helps health care professionals reduce costs while maintaining or
1

Health Care Costs: A Primer; The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, August 2007.
Medical Causes of Death in State Prisons, 2001-2004; Bureau of Justice Statistics: Data Brief.
3
Bush R, Reducing Waste in U.S. Health Care Systems; JAMA, vol 297, No. 8, Feb. 28, 2007.
2

Page 6-41

Institutional Operations & Support Services

improving quality. The current medical program leadership has already accomplished several
waste reduction efforts that have produced savings. Such efforts should be integrated into
operations of all health care units.
The program’s accomplishments in this area over the past years have been significant.
Contracting out pharmacy services with the initiation of formulary management has produced
estimated savings of $1 million out of fiscal 2006 expenditures of $8 million (a 13 percent
savings) has occurred with no apparent change in quality.
Furthermore, the Medical/Unison utilization system permits physicians on site at the prison to
query a specialist over an Internet-based “curbside consult” system, which reduces transportation
to specialists and gives local prison physicians specialty advice for a wide variety of clinical
problems.
Finally, the legislature significantly reduced DOC’s hospital rates by applying Medicaid rates to
reimbursement for non-network hospital use. It does run the risk of discouraging hospitals from
treating inmates because of low reimbursement rates, but this has not occurred to date, according
to DOC medical leadership.
Several other potential areas for cost reductions include reviewing community corrections, 430B
pharmacy pricing, disease management programs and utilization review.

430B Pharmaceutical Pricing
Manufacturer discounts for pharmaceuticals similar to those received by Medicaid programs are
available to certain qualified health care providers. This rule is detailed in Section 340B of the
Public Health Services Act.4 Prison providers typically do not qualify under these rules, but if a
federally qualified practitioner provides the care, medication costs can be discounted to 340B
pricing. Oklahoma should explore the potential for obtaining such discounts.
Typically, agencies look at this as an all-or-none discount. Instead, the department could consider
carving out areas of care with the highest pharmaceutical costs to run as 340B programs. These
include psychotropics, HIV and hepatitis C medications. If providers in these treatment areas are
federally qualified practitioners, special pricing may be obtained. For HIV and hepatitis C, using
telemedicine to have practitioners at federally qualified centers prescribe medication is a distinct
possibility. A federally qualified group of practitioners also could provide mental health care.
DOC uses “telepsychiatry” for about 700 visits a month by about 4,000 persons on psychotropic
medication. Since these patients are already under psychiatric care, and because it is extremely
difficult to recruit psychiatrists to the prison program, a federally qualified group of practitioners
should be considered as potential contractors.

4

The PHS 340B Drug Pricing Program: Results of a Survey of Eligible Entities; Final Report, Mathmatica Policy
Research, Inc. August 30, 2004 as found at ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/bphc/pdf/opa/340Bsurveyrpt.pdf.

Page 6-42

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Disease Management Programs
Managed care programs have embraced disease management programs to reduce hospital and
outpatient medical care costs. The concept involves experts using proven work processes,
equipment and tools to manage inmate care, resulting in a lower overall cost of providing care
and reduction in hospitalization and other unwanted outcomes. DOC has some elements of a
disease management program, but the effort has not been adequately supported to date. Several
components of DOC’s program are deficient and hamper its ability to obtain the full benefit of
such a program.
One of the primary deficiencies MGT identified was a lack of reasonably organized medical
records. We found records with notes and reports filed in wrong sections or misfiled
chronologically, which could inhibit the quality of service.
DOC has discussed introducing electronic medical records, which offer the advantages of
legibility; simultaneous multiple-user access; the elimination of filing problems; more
comprehensive documentation by clinicians, thus potentially reducing liability; easier utilization
management reviews and quality improvement reviews; and a reduction of errors, such as
transcription errors by nurses when physicians order medications.
Electronic medical records would, however, require careful training for all new users, as staff
turnover occurs; ongoing hardware and software support; and a potentially significant initial
expenditure.
Ultimately, any decision to implement an electronic medical record would require a very
carefully constructed request for proposals. The selection process should require evaluators to
visit places where the proposed products are being used, to ensure that the product is efficient and
user-friendly. Selections made in the absence of such site visits have resulted in customer
dissatisfaction.
It should also be noted note that some immediate change in the paper record process is necessary,
as the records we examined were disorganized and did not support efficient clinical care. These
problems are compounded because the private prison facilities use a separate medical record
format that increases the probability of failed communication.

Utilization Review
DOC’s hospital utilization review is conducted by Fiserv Health Harrington, which manages a
provider network and reviews bills based on whether a provider is in or out of the network and
adjusts the invoice accordingly. To assess the effectiveness of this service, MGT requested a
sample of 300 claims and associated medical records---100 in-patient hospital claims, 100 outpatient hospital claims, and 100 physician claims. The vendor initially submitted 100 claims,
with a subsequent submission 48 claims, for a total audit sample of 148 claims. The purpose of
the review was to determine the accuracy of claims submitted by healthcare providers and DOC’s
ability to accurately process and pay these claims. The sample was run through a system in
compliance with the Correct Coding Initiative (CCI) developed by the American Medical
Association (AMA) to promote correct coding methodologies.

Page 6-43

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Our review found that 36 of the 148 claims provided by the vendor contained errors that should
have been denied for payment or returned to the healthcare provider for correction. These errors
included:


7 duplicate claims;



5 coding denials;



3 potential denials; and



21 line item coding exceptions.

Exhibit 6-15 summarizes the total dollar value of the errors identified in MGT’s review.
EXHIBIT 6-15
Errors Found in Medical Claim Sample
Duplicate Claims
Coding Denials
Potential Denials
Line Item Exceptions
Total Payment/Coding Errors

$
$
$
$
$

101,876.00
10,678.11
66,118.55
14,992.53
193,665.19

Source: MGT of America.

MGT also reviewed rates paid to network providers. We used an alternative Oklahoma contract
provider network used by the private prison operators and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to
conduct a comparison of charges on the first batch of 100 claims DOC provided. The alternative
network bases payment upon a Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) methodology, as opposed to the
department’s current network, which pays claims based on a percentage of usual charges.
Although this network does not cover the entire state, it demonstrates the potential for savings
that could be achieved from the department’s current network.
By running these claims against the existing network in Oklahoma, we found the following
results:


total provider charges on the 100 claims were $1,884,221.



DOC paid anywhere from 100 percent to 70 percent of charges. Assuming 70
percent of charges for all claims, Oklahoma DOC would have paid
$1,318,954, for a savings of $565,266.



Using the alternative provider network identified for this exercise, DOC would
have paid $700,057 on the claims, resulting in a savings of $1,184,164.

Combining these network savings with the payment errors identified in the audit produces a total
potential savings of $1,377,829.19 on the 148 claims submitted for our review. While the savings
identified from this sample should not necessarily be extrapolated onto DOC’s entire medical
claims budget without more detailed analysis, the results do suggest that the department should
Page 6-44

Institutional Operations & Support Services

seek to improve the accuracy of its claims payments system, and consider using alternative
provider networks to achieve greater savings. Attempts to review the results of this audit with the
vendor prior to the release of this report were not successful. The department should attempt to
validate these audit results through more detailed analysis of its claims processing systems.
In a related issue, neither the department nor Fiserv currently conducts meaningful utilization
reviews directed toward preventing unnecessary hospitalization. The Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality provides a set of indicators that can be used to monitor hospitalizations for
potentially unnecessary admissions. These indicators require hospitalizations to be listed by
diagnosis; DOC could easily track these. Such reviews would be useful in identifying preventable
outpatient management problems that result in hospitalization. The indicators can be found at the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site.
Finally, prescription drug costs have come to represent a substantial portion of operating costs in
DOC prison medical programs. DOC has outsourced pharmacy services to Diamond Pharmacy
Services, and a formulary is in place. Reports are provided that permit analysis and utilization
review on the part of Central Office staff. These efforts have resulted in significant savings over
the past year.

Quality Improvement Program
DOC’s Office of Health Services maintains a quality improvement program overseen by the
medical director. The office has four quality assurance nurses, each of whom is responsible for
reviewing care at a subset of facilities and performing studies in relation to those facilities. Within
the last year, the studies have included outcome studies considering such measures as whether
diabetics’ disease is in good control, as evidenced by a recent hemoglobin A1C of less than 7
percent. The officers also has reviewed asthma care, considering whether asthmatics are receiving
unscheduled nebulization treatment and how often asthmatics they are sent off-site on an
emergency basis. These are excellent items to review. In addition, process measures were
examined, including management oversight of intrasystem transfers Other items reviewed
included the frequency of quarterly suicide prevention meetings; whether orders to the infirmary
were always written; and whether patients for whom tuberculosis is a concern are housed in
appropriate negative pressure rooms.
The quality assurance nurses also review potential movements of patients from inpatient beds at
both the Oklahoma University Hospital and at the Lindsay Hospital, a 22-bed acute care hospital
offering DOC less costly beds. They also review the availability of beds in DOC infirmaries.
Physicians and nurses hold monthly meetings to review the use of off-site services. In addition,
the state medical director conducts a prospective review of off-site referrals via software called
Medical Unison, which requires physicians to order off-site consults electronically; these are emailed to the state medical director for review. In some instances, the director can forward the
requested information to a specialist and obtain a consultation electronically without having to
send the patient off-site. This appears to an efficient way of providing these services.
For some services, preset criteria are in place that must be met before an order can be placed. This
includes services such as a sleep study performed to identify patients who may need C-PAP
equipment to aid their sleep.
Page 6-45

Institutional Operations & Support Services

DOC also provides a review of all inmate deaths by the Oklahoma Foundation for Medical
Quality. This organization provides a review by both a nurse and a physician. Any problems they
identify are listed as “potential” or “significant.” When problems are identified as Level 4
(egregious), a clinician may be terminated. For Level 3 problems, additional training may be
required. The most common causes of death are end-stage liver disease, heart disease and cancer,
and this is consistent with what is found in most other departments of corrections.

Leadership
DOC’s Office of Health Services has a strong leadership team including the state medical director
and the Health Services administrator, along with the chief dental officer, chief of Mental Health
Services and chief psychologist. Each member of the current leadership team has substantial
experience and excellent qualifications, and appears to be quite knowledgeable about the current
array of services, including strengths and weaknesses, and how improvements might be made.

Staffing
At present, DOC has 299 filled medical care staff positions out of 364 budgeted positions. The
vacant positions, however, almost certainly will not be filled, as the positions are budgeted at 83
percent of authorized staffing. This results in an effective staffing level of 299 positions for abut
20,000 inmates.
DOC’s staffing in proportion to its number of inmates has decreased over the past decade. In a
1999 National Commission on Correctional Health Care study of 28 state prison systems,
Oklahoma was tied for the second lowest ratio of staff to inmates.5 The ratio in this 1999 study
was one staff for every 63 inmates. The current 299 filled medical positions represent a ratio of
one staff for every 67 inmates. This ratio is quite high and places undue stress on the staff.
Department data indicate a 39 percent turnover rate among medical care staff, due in part to the
difficulties of working in a correctional environment and also due to compensation issues.
Some changes have occurred since staff of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care
provided a technical assistance review nearly four years ago. These changes include providing the
medical director with authority over personnel (other than the private prison health care
personnel). The Office of Health Services now can directly hire civil service employees in certain
categories, creating a far more efficient process and reducing the number of promising job
candidates lost due to delays in hiring. Access to background checks for potential staff also has
been expedited, thus facilitating hiring.
But salaries in several key areas, including nurses, physicians and psychiatrists, are not
competitive. While documentation form the Oklahoma State Personnel Office indicates that
department nurse salary levels are at market, the fact is that the demand for nurses is highly
dynamic and varies greatly in different parts of the state. In response, the department has
increased its shift differential pay for nurses and has instituted a $5,000 signing bonus for new
nurse hires. Current demand for nurses is very competitive. Psychiatry positions are particularly

5

Correctional Health Care: Guidelines for the Management of an Adequate Delivery System, BJ Anno, December
2001; National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

Page 6-46

Institutional Operations & Support Services

hard to fill due to low salaries. Salaries of important clinical staff should be periodically revised
to ensure DOC’s ability to recruit and retain necessary staff.
Both Mental Health Services and Medical Services have developed staffing plans that call for
more staffing.6,7 The Medical Services Division estimates its staffing needs at 429.5, 130 or 43
percent above existing staffing. The Mental Health Division estimates its staffing needs at 38
additional staff or 57 percent more than the current staff of 67. While our audit was not extensive
enough to determine the exact staffing needs of all facilities, the situation at the Harp facility in
particular demonstrated staffing problems serious enough to warrant a closer review.

Infirmary Units
Infirmary units offer protected housing to disabled and infirm inmates and allow medical staff to
provide certain types of care (intravenous antibiotic therapy, specialized dressing changes, etc.)
that typically reduce hospitalization rates. Oklahoma has not had an increase in infirmary beds
since 1978. Since we do not have data on the Oklahoma prison population during that time, a
comparison to current times was not possible.
The court-appointed receiver for the California prison medical programs recently commissioned a
study of the long-term care needs of prison inmates that suffer from cognitive disorders
(dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc.); major disabilities requiring some assistance with daily living; or
other dependencies resulting from a medical disorder..8
Excluding persons who might be capable of being housed in general population, the number of
California low and high acuity beds was approximately 4.6 per thousand beds. Applying this ratio
to Oklahoma, would produce an expected need of about 91 infirmary beds throughout the system.
Oklahoma has 42, less than half of that number. The lack of infirmary care typically results in
longer hospitalizations or increased morbidity, neither of which has been studied carefully in the
Oklahoma system.
The J Unit at Harp was established in early 2007 to house severely disabled inmates. This unit,
however, opened with only half of its requested staff, and even the requested staff was, in our
opinion, not inadequate to manage the patients housed there. Inmates provide daily living care to
severely brain-damaged inmates who need assistance with toiletry or daily living needs including
feeding. The nursing staff is inadequate and morale is poor.

6

Oklahoma Department of Correction Mental Health Services Strategic Management Plan FY08-FY13.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections-Medical Services Division; Benchmark Staffing.
8
Chronic and Long-term Care in California Prisons: Needs Assessments. Final Report, August 31, 2007, ABT
Associates.
7

Page 6-47

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Mental Health
DOC is committed to improve mental health services to inmates to:


move inmates with mental health conditions into the community;



remove difficult-to-manage inmates from the general population into
intermediate mental health care units, where they can receive treatment and
management; and



provide cognitive-behavioral treatment for those with serious mental illness.

To accomplish these goals presents several major several challenges, including inadequate
staffing and space.

Private Prisons
The structure of the private prisons’ medical programs was determined by contract, and the
Office of Health Services has had limited involvement in drafting those specifications. Staffing
specification, in particular, should conform to Office of Health Services standards. Health service
programs in the contracted facilities are not required to use DOC forms in their records, and they
do not always follow DOC health care policies. The Office of Health Services cannot monitor
those programs in the same way it monitors its own. The office cannot, for instance, follow up on
inmate grievances regarding health care. In essence, there may be two standards of care within
DOC—one for inmates in state-run facilities, and the other for those housed in the private
prisons.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-34. DOC should use clinical measures to evaluate the adequacy of
its healthcare budget, such as mortality, potentially preventable hospitalizations and
sentinel morbid events!
Recommendation 6-35. DOC should consider using 430B pharmaceutical pricing to
lower pharmaceutical costs.
Recommendation 6-36. DOC should validate the results of the claims audit conducted
in this review, and if confirmed, take action to improve the accuracy and efficiency of
the claims payment process.
Recommendation 6-37. DOC should assess the feasibility of utilizing alternative
provider networks to achieve greater levels of savings on health care.
Recommendation 6-38. DOC should augment its disease management programs by
providing physicians with greater nursing support and establishing an electronic
medical record. In the meantime, the existing paper record system needs immediate
improvement.

Page 6-48

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Recommendation 6-39. DOC should expand its use of utilization review to include
concurrent and retrospective reviews of potentially preventable hospital days, as
recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Recommendation 6-40. DOC should increase filled positions in both the medical and
mental health program to 100 percent of authorized positions.
Recommendation 6-41. DOC should increase its number of infirmary beds to improve
hospital utilization and care management for severely disabled inmates.
Recommendation 6-42. DOC should negotiate with private prison vendors to give the
Office of Health Services oversight over health care programs in the private prisons,
and to standardize forms and the implementation of DOC policies.

Page 6-49

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Oklahoma Correctional Industries
Oklahoma Correctional Industries (OCI) employs inmates to produce an extensive line of
products and services that are sold to government and nonprofit organizations as well as
government employees. OCI’s mission is to provide marketable job skills and job training to the
offenders it employs.
As a distinct entity within the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, OCI is financially selfsufficient and receives no taxpayer funding. All of its expenses are paid for with the revenues it
receives from the products and services it sells. OCI has 19 business operations at ten prisons in
the state. Many are considered traditional correctional industry programs, such as:


office furniture manufacturing;



metal fabrication;



garment manufacturing;



printing;



records conversion/digitalization;



sign manufacturing;



cleaning/janitorial supply production; and



mattress manufacturing.

In addition to these industries, OCI also employs inmates in joint partnerships with two private
businesses:


Business-to-Business Telemarketing: In partnership with DMI, Incorporated,
inmates develop telemarketing skills at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center.



Packaging/Distribution: In partnership with the Jacobs Trading Company,
inmates package and redistribute returned and overstock merchandise at the
Eddie Warrior Correctional Center.

OCI also has a unique Modular Housing Construction program that designs, builds and installs
modular homes. Since this program began, OCI has sold more than 175 homes.

Comparisons with Other States
According to the National Correctional Industry Association’s 2005 Directory, all 50 states
operate some form of correctional industry program. While these correctional industries vary in
size, products produced and programs offered, they generally have the same mission focus, to
provide offenders with the opportunity to develop useful skills that can help them succeed upon
release.

Page 6-50

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Some key indicators comparing OCI performance with other states include:


participation: In 2005, Oklahoma had the 18th largest state prison population
and employed more than 1,000 inmates in its industry programs, placing it 19th
among states. OCI employed 4.7 percent of the prison population, slightly
more than the national average of 4.1 percent.



revenue: OCI’s 2005 revenue of $16.2 million ranked it 26th among states.
Recent sales growth, however, is likely to improve its standing.



diversification: Many states depend heavily on the corrections agency as their
major customer. This ties their success to something they cannot control, the
corrections budget. For this reason, a diversified customer base is important.
OCI is very diversified, with only 20 percent of it sales due to DOC in 2005.
Other state correctional industries averaged 33 percent of sales to their
corrections agency.

OCI’s sales are low, however, compared to programs in states with similar prison populations
(20,000 to 26,000 offenders). OCI had the second-lowest sales among this group in fiscal 2005
(Exhibit 6-16). It also employed the least civilian staff among this group.
EXHIBIT 6-16
Comparisons to States with Similar Prison Populations

% Sales
Total
from
Inmates
DOC
Employed

State Prison
Population

Sales

Alabama
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
South Carolina
Maryland
Colorado
Indiana

25,418
23,008
21,850
23,072
23,215
20,317
22,392

$15,774,000
$16,200,000
$23,394,898
$25,014,625
$35,682,223
$36,026,120
$43,800,000

42.0%
19.9%
N/A
11.7%
19.0%
23.0%
36.0%

Average - All
States

25,110

$24,161,769

33.2%

%
Employed
in
# of
# of
Industries Industries Staff

Similar Size States

2,155
1,092
673
1,077
1,392
1,281
1,115

1,045

8.5%
4.7%
3.1%
4.7%
6.0%
6.3%
5.0%

22
21
26
36
30
58
35

98
89
136
108
159
137
172

4.2%

24

95

Source: MGT of America.

OCI’s organizational structure, however, makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions from these
comparisons. In particular, most state correctional industries have agricultural or food processing
operations; in Oklahoma, a separate Agri-Services Unit handles these operations, and its data are
not listed in the National Correctional Industry Association report. Agri-Services’ external sales
have been about $8 million per year. If this figure were added to OCI’s 2005 sales, the total
would almost meet the 50-state average of $24 million and its rank in revenues would rise to 21st
among all states.
Page 6-51

Institutional Operations & Support Services

MGT met with OCI staff and visited field operations. MGT found OCI to be a well-organized and
disciplined unit that has strong, forward-thinking central leadership and a qualified staff in its
field operations.
OCI has prepared a detailed long-range business plan that examines its competitiveness,
establishes financial, productivity and employment goals and identifies the needs of its specific
operations. OCI takes advantage of niche business opportunities when these are deemed
profitable and beneficial to the inmates. Because of these qualities, OCI sales are growing
significantly. Sales rose by more than 21 percent, from $15.7 million in fiscal 2006 to $19.2
million in fiscal 2007. Profit more than tripled, to $1.4 million in fiscal 2007, resulting in a
healthy profit margin of 7.4 percent.

Plant Storage Space
MGT found that many of OCI’s production plants are cramped and lack adequate storage space
for raw materials and finished goods. This lack of space significantly restricts OCI’s production
and growth prospects. A central warehouse would improve OCI’s operations in several ways:


increase in purchasing power—increased storage space would allow OCI to
purchase raw materials in larger quantities at a reduced price.



larger production space—floor space available for production would be
expanded, since the majority of raw materials and finished goods could be
stored offsite.



improved ability to compete—OCI is often unable to compete on projects that
require quick completion, due to limited its storage space and the state’s
procurement process. A central warehouse would negate this disadvantage,
since OCI would have the space it needs to purchase and store raw materials in
advance of production needs, thereby allowing it to respond more quickly to
bids.



stock finished goods inventory—OCI could produce commonly purchased
items to fill stock inventories at the central warehouse. This could decrease
costs by allowing for an efficient “assembly line” approach, and allow OCI to
provide immediate delivery of these items, encouraging increased sales.

OCI administration is aware of their need for storage space, and identified it in their fiscal 2007 to
2012 business plan.

Recidivism Reviews
If OCI is effective, its participants should be less likely to return to prison. OCI is working with
Oklahoma University to research and develop recidivism rates for inmates who have participated
in its programs. This information then should be compared to overall DOC recidivism rates to
determine OCI’s effectiveness.

Page 6-52

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-43. OCI should consider building or purchasing a central
warehouse to store raw materials and finished goods.
A central warehouse would free up space at existing shops and ultimately increase their
capacity and usefulness. OCI should conduct a cost-benefit evaluation that:


identifies the products it will store in a central warehouse;



determines current and future square footage needed to accommodate these products;



identifies all capital and operating costs associated with a central warehouse; and



projects the benefits and sales growth that would result from both added production
space at existing sites and a new central warehouse.

Recommendation 6-44. OCI should develop annual offender recidivism statistics for
inmates involved in its programs. These data then can be compared to overall department
recidivism rates to determine the OCI programs’ effectiveness.

Page 6-53

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Management of Female Offenders
In a July 2007 research fact sheet report, “The Nation’s Most Punitive States for Women,” the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) found enormous disparities among states in
the way female offenders are treated.9 Using the latest available data from prisons, jails,
probation, and parole for adult and juvenile women, NCCD reported that “disparate incarceration,
probation and parole rates do not correspond to differences in state arrest rates,” but instead are
due largely to differing state policies and practices. The council concluded that the most punitive
states do not have lower female crime rates.
The report also noted that the U.S. imprisons more women and girls than any other nation. And
the proportion of incarcerated women to men is rising. The report confirmed a fact that
policymakers in Oklahoma already know: the state has the nation’s highest incarceration rate for
women.
NCCD also reported that, based on 2005 state prison and jail incarceration rates, the most
punitive states for women were Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Idaho, Georgia and Wyoming. The
states with the lowest rates of incarceration were Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Minnesota and New Hampshire. Almost a third of all female prisoners in the U.S. were held in
three California, Texas and Florida.
MGT was unable to conclusively establish specific reasons for Oklahoma’s high incarceration
rate. It is our belief that it is the result of a combination of issues:
Incarceration of Female Offenders
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Texas
Idaho
Georgia
Number of
Incarcerated
Women per
100,000

Wyoming

Minnesota
Massachusetts
Vermont
Maine
Rhode Island
0

50

100

150

200

250

Source: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

9

The Nations Most Punitive States for Women, July 2007. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency,
Christopher Hartney.

Page 6-54

Institutional Operations & Support Services



it appears that many local jurisdictions have a shortage of jail beds for the
short-term incarceration of female offenders. This results in commitments to
prison rather than jail.



the high percentage of DOC female inmates with mental health needs
indicates that many were placed there to obtain treatment services that may not
be available at the local level for individuals with criminal histories.



the Oklahoma criminal justice simply does not demonstrate the degree of
leniency and, in a sense, preferential treatment toward female offenders that
other jurisdictions do. Many states use incarceration only as a last resort for
female offenders; this does not appear to be the case in Oklahoma.



the female prisoners’ high rate of drug involvement accompanying other
criminal behavior results in a higher incarceration rate



Oklahoma’s extensive use of delayed sentencing options may increase the
female incarceration rate.

Women make up 10.2 percent of DOC’s population. This far exceeds the national average, which
ranges between 4 and 7 percent.
Women are housed in several facilities. Our reviewed focused particular attention on the Mabel
Bassett facility, which holds the higher-risk female offenders. At the time of MGT’s site visit,
Mabel Bassett had the following population demographics:


The facility housed 969 women.
–
–
–
–



40 percent were African American
15 percent were Hispanic
39 percent were Caucasian
6 percent were characterized as “other”

Classification levels of the current population:
–
–
–

28 = maximum security
690 = medium security
250 = minimum security

As noted in our chapter on the current classification process, the system appears to overclassify
women, particularly in the maximum category. In most systems, when properly classified, the
largest percentage of women prisoners are classified as minimum security.

General Site Visit Observations


The institution was clean and quiet. The mental health unit was quiet and even
the segregation unit was quiet; prisoners asked about the visitor without
yelling.



Grounds were well-kept and we observed prisoners taking care of walks,
gardens and grounds.
Page 6-55

Institutional Operations & Support Services



Housing units are divided into pods, with a central control tower staffed by
one officer. An additional officer makes rounds in all of the pods.



Inmates have access to an intercom in each room to alert the officer in the
tower of emergencies or other needs.



Each pod had a new office area built in the middle of the pod which gave no
sight access to one area of cells. There are mirrors and a camera in this area to
improve supervision.



The library, especially the law library, seemed to be well-supplied. Three
prisoner law clerks assist fellow inmates. They have had eight hours of
training by Central Office legal personnel.



The medical area is small and staffing is a problem. Nursing shortages are due
to a shortage of candidates; area hospitals offer signing bonuses. At the time of
our visit four out of ten LPN positions were vacant, as were four out of eight
RN positions.



Staff interviewed appeared to know their responsibilities and made no
complaints about overwork or harassment, although most reported that they
could use additional staff.

Staffing
We noted that Bassett is authorized for 219 FTEs. At present, however, just 133 correctional
officers work at the facility. Our analysis indicates:


210 correctional officers are needed to operate the facility in a way consistent
with professional standards and department policies.



an additional two maintenance workers and three food service workers are
needed as well.

The majority of staff members at Mabel Bassett are male, but we observed a significant number
of female officers assigned to the housing unit bubble areas and the Control Center. Given the
limited number of female staff, it would be better if the institution assigned as many female staff
members as possible to direct supervision of the housing units.

Training
The Mabel Bassett deputy warden supervises the training manager, who also reports to the
Central Office training manager. The following difficulties with the training program noted at
Bassett should be reviewed by DOC as potential problems that exist throughout DOC:


the lack of a facility training budget. Instead, each facility is asked to submit a
“wish list.”



Training records reviewed indicated that the number and types of employees
who are trained by the institutional training manager (ITM) varies among
facilities.
Page 6-56

Institutional Operations & Support Services



Facilities have a varying level of equipment yet the ITMs are expected to
deliver the same training.



Bassett has no dedicated space for training. Instead, an area shared with roll
call is used for training, which makes it difficult to secure the equipment used
in training.



staff often cannot attend training because they have been assigned to pull
double shifts.”



the Central Office training manager requires large amounts of paperwork from
ITMs, yet they is no dedicated support staff to assist them. As such, the ITM is
expected to conduct training while also completing all clerical duties
necessary to comply with the paperwork requirements.

Reception/Intake
At present, Lexington Correctional Center is the Assessment and Reception Center for all females
entering the system. If a woman is determined eligible for placement at Bassett, she is typically
transferred there within five to seven days.
Bassett is undergoing remodeling to accommodate a new reception center for women offenders.
Once the renovation is completed, Bassett will receive and process all female new commitments
and parole violators.
DOC’s classification director is currently located at the Lexington facility and all the
classification unit managers report to this position. When the reception center moves to Bassett,
all unit managers will continue to report to the classification director, but custody staff at Bassett
will report through their chains of command to the warden.
Our assessment indicates that dual management and supervision of the reception function is
problematic. Several factors support this conclusion. The scope of the classification director’s
responsibilities is very broad and stretches her ability to manage all the functions under her
responsibility. This, combined with the physical distance between Lexington and Bassett, and the
inherent and obvious differences in the assessment and management of female offenders, suggest
that an alternate management structure may be advisable. DOC should review this issue to ensure
that local facility supervision of the unit is maximized.

Mental Health Services
DOC documents indicated that 72 percent of women at Bassett have some mental health
diagnosis and receive mental health services. This percentage is very high for a population of this
size and demographics. It does, however, confirm information provided by the Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services that females have an extremely high rate of mental
illness in Oklahoma. This issue is addressed in a more thorough manner in the medical section
above.

Page 6-57

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Systems Mapping
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has developed a new initiative related to systems
mapping. NIC consultant Becky Nye is working with the staff at Bassett to develop a systems
map that will trace the movements and actions of the female offenders through the criminal
justice system. Once this is finalized, it will identify how women move though the system. This
may produce information useful for refining services delivered to women prisoners.

Delayed Sentencing
Courts may delay sentencing of prisoners for a period of up to 120 days. During this time, the
women who are committed under this provision are housed at Bassett. At the conclusion of the
120 days, the court may opt to release the woman to the community under some type of
supervision, or sentence her to a specific term in prison.
This process is somewhat confusing. It appears that the courts use delayed sentencing in the same
way that the old “scared straight” program was used. Our understanding is that the anticipated
goal of delayed sentencing is to affect the offender’s future behavior; in effect, it is a 120-day
“time-out” sentence.
Prisoners incarcerated under delayed sentencing reside in minimum-security housing as part of
the general population, and have no restrictions as to their movement or programming
involvement. Actually, it would be impossible for a woman to be enrolled in any type of positive
programming within a 120 day stay, due to the waiting lists. It appears that prisoners under
delayed sentencing spend 120 days in their housing unit with little if any involvement in
programming or treatment.
Further review of the use of delayed sentencing for women offenders appears to be warranted.
The cost to process prisoners and house them for 120 days may negate any benefits accrued from
the delayed sentence.

Faith-Based Programming
MGT reviewed the unit housing prisoners involved in the Faith Based Program. The atmosphere
in this unit was vibrant and all women were actively engaged in group programming. The unit
staff seemed enthusiastic and was obviously committed to the program.

PREA Policy
MGT reviewed DOC’s draft Federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) policy, and noted that
while the 16-page policy attempts to address critical issues related to sexual violence in prison, it
fails to provide direction to staff in terms of specific actions and activities. The policy fails to
identify what actions are required in cases of suspected sexual abuse, for instance, leaving staff
action open to interpretation. Since all may have differing interpretations of appropriateness, the
policy falls well short of providing clear direction to staff.

Page 6-58

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Department employees have developed a number of specific proposals to improve the policy.
These include:


initiate and publicize a toll-free number inmates can use to report sexual
violence;



establish specific programs for youthful and first-time offenders;



improve planning for victims and perpetrators of sexual violence who are
being released on parole;



refine the re-entry programming so that the process begins at intake;



develop and display posters in the facilities which impart the message, “Prison
Rape Makes You a Sex Offender”; and



establish procedures calling for the notification of spouses that an inmate
committed a rape.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 6-45. DOC should assess the number of jail beds and local
sentencing options available for women to determine these options need expansion.
MGT was unable to come to a definitive conclusion on whether the lack of local
incarceration beds is contributing to the high incarceration rate for women. CJRC should
complete a comprehensive study of this issue to determine if the state could initiate any
actions to encourage the use of local options for female offenders.
Recommendation 6-46. DOC should consider separating supervisory responsibilities
for female assessment and reception functions from the Lexington operation. Due to
the factors mentioned above, we believe that the level of supervision provided in the
proposed organizational structure for the Bassett assessment and reception center will be
inadequate.
Recommendation 6-47. DOC should finalize the proposed PREA policy and ensure
that it includes specific provisions for expectations and actions. The use of terms such
as “as appropriate and when appropriate” does not provide the specificity needed to
address the critical issues of prison sexual assault. Descriptions of expectations and
actions required should be specific and outlined in detail. The policy also should also
incorporate the improvements
Recommendation 6-48. DOC should monitor the use of delayed sentencing to ensure
that it is not being used simply as an alternative to local incarceration. MGT believes
that this mechanism was intended to provide a period of incarceration during which DOC
could observe the offender and assess her programming needs. It does not appear that
delayed sentencing is being used for this purpose at present.

Page 6-59

Institutional Operations & Support Services

Recommendation 6-49. DOC and MHSAS should continue to collaborate in identifying
improved ways to address the mental health needs of female offenders. The high
incidence of mental illness within this population must continue to be a high priority for
both agencies. MHSAS has demonstrated a willingness to commit additional resources to
meeting these needs, both at the institutional level and in the community. These efforts
should continue. Providing as many of these services at the local level will improve their
cost-effectiveness.

Page 6-60

7.0 ADMINISTRATION

7.0 ADMINISTRATION
Budget
One of the primary goals of MGT’s study is an objective assessment of DOC’s budgetary
resource requirements. DOC’s budgetary needs have been a contentious issue for at least eight
years. Ongoing disputes over funding have resulted in the relatively unique practice of
intentionally underfunding the department in the appropriations process, and making up the
remainder with supplemental appropriations late in the fiscal year. This practice developed due to
a number of factors, but it is fundamentally a function of unresolved and significant questions
regarding the department’s budget needs and management practices. These questions include:


What developments and trends are driving the department’s budgetary needs?



Does DOC manage its available resources in an efficient manner?



How do DOC spending levels and patterns compare with other correctional
systems?



What level and allocation of resources does the current system require to
function in an effective manner?



Do current department management systems support adequate levels of
accountability and transparency in the budgeting process?

This analysis addresses these questions and attempts to develop a foundation of information
required for a productive deliberation on the department’s budget.
DOC spent a total of $517.8 million in fiscal 2007, nearly 92 percent of it appropriated funds. The
department expects to spend $535.3 million in fiscal 2008, assuming approval of its supplemental
appropriations request. With the supplemental spending, the 2008 total will represent a 1.5
percent increase.
EXHIBIT 7-1
DOC Funding, 2006-2009
(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)

Appropriated
Funds
Other
Resources
Total Budget
FTEs

Fiscal
2006
Spending

Fiscal
2007
Spending

Fiscal 2008
w/Suppl.

# Change

%
Change

Fiscal
2009
Request

$ 403,432

$ 475,207

$ 482,620

$

7,413

1.5%

$ 572,994

$ 67,979
$ 471,411

$ 42,561
$ 517,768

$ 52,643
$ 535,263

$
$

10,082
17,495

19.2%
3.3%

$ 51,506
$ 624,500

4739.8

4,833.5

4,833.5

3.2%

4,989.0

155.5

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-1

Administration

Spending Patterns
From a program viewpoint, more than 83 percent of DOC’s budget goes directly to institutional
operations, inmate health services, and community supervision (Exhibit 7-2).
EXHIBIT 7-2
DOC Budget by Program
OCI/Grants
8%

Programs
3%

Administration
6%

Health Services
12%
Institutions
55%

Community
Corrections/Sentencing
16%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The majority of DOC’s spending, 57 percent, goes to staff salaries and benefits (Exhibit 7-3).
The next-largest category is professional services and contracts, which includes all of the private
correctional facility contracts as well as service contracts with doctors, hospitals and
pharmaceutical providers. In all, staff costs and contracts comprise 80 percent of the department’s
budget. This is a somewhat higher level of contract spending than typically seen in correctional
agencies, and is largely attributable to the magnitude of private prison contracting in Oklahoma.

Page 7-2

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-3
DOC Budget by Account
Debt Service
1%
Equipment
1%
Food, Supplies & Materials
5%

Other
6%

Maint. & Repairs/Bldg
Const.
3%
Utilities/Admin
4%

Salaries & Benefits
57%
Professional
Services/contracts
23%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Comparisons with Other States
Based on data collected by the American Correctional Association for 2005, Oklahoma ranks 41st
among the states in per diem expenditures, making it one of the least-expensive correctional
systems in the nation (Exhibit 7-4). The department’s costs are about 33 percent below the
national average per diem costs for correctional systems, and are substantially lower than
comparable neighboring states except for Missouri.

Page 7-3

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-4
Correctional System Per Diem Costs

Missouri

Oklahoma

Kansas

National Average

Nebraska

Colorado

New Mexico

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

$90.00

Source: American Correctional Association.

Oklahoma allocates a much greater proportion of its state budget to corrections than most other
states, however. Oklahoma allocates 7 percent of its state budget to corrections, twice as much of
the national average, and much more than all of its peer states (Exhibit 7-5).

Page 7-4

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-5
Corrections as a Percent of State Budget
Kansas

2.16%

New Mexico

2.09%

Missouri

3.04%

National Average

3.50%

Colorado

4.00%

Arkansas

4.10%

Nebraska

4.50%

Oklahoma

0.00%

7.04%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

Source: MGT of America.

This seeming paradox—very low per diem spending coupled with extremely high levels of state
investment in corrections—is explained by Oklahoma’s high incarceration rate. As of October
2007, Oklahoma has the nation’s fourth-highest rate of incarceration, following only Louisiana,
Texas and Mississippi. While DOC is very efficient in spending levels per inmate, the sheer
number of offenders committed to the system forces the state to allocate an extremely high
proportion of its resources to corrections.
Oklahoma’s incarceration rate is nearly twice that of Kansas and about 37 percent higher than
Arkansas, for instance. Exhibits 7-6 through 7-8 illustrate the close correlation between a state’s
incarceration rate and its investment in its correctional system. With the sole exception of
Nebraska, the percent of the state budget spent on corrections generally tracks a state’s
incarceration rate rather closely.

Page 7-5

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-6
State Rankings For Incarceration Rates, 2006
WA (41)
M T (28)

VT (42)

ND (46)

ME
(50)

M N (49)
OR (30)

NH (47)
ID (15)

WI (27)

SD (20)
WY (24)

NV (11)

PA (33)

IA (40)

NE (43)

IL (32)
UT (45)
CA (16)

AZ (7)

CO (18)

NM
(35)

KS (38)

MO (9)

OK (4)

IN
(21)

M A (44)

NY (36)

M I (10)

OH (23)
WV
(39) VA (17)

RI (48)
CT (29)
NJ (37)
DE (13)
M D (26)

KY (19)
NC (31)

TN (22)

AR (14)

SC (8)
MS
(3)

AL
(5)

GA (6)

TX (2)
LA (1)

FL
(12)

AK (25)

INCARCERATION R ANK
HI (34)

1 to 10
11 to 25

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26 to 50

Page 7-6

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-7
Incarceration
Rates
Peer
State Incarceration
Rates
323

Kansas

334

New Mexico

524

Missouri

497

National Average

466

Colorado

247

Nebraska

478

Arkansas

658

Oklahoma
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Inmates per 100,000

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

EXHIBIT 7-8
Peer States: Incarceration Rate and Corrections Spending
As a Percent of State Budget
700

8.00%

7.00%

600

6.00%
500
5.00%
400
4.00%

Incarceration Rate
% of St. Budget

300
3.00%
200
2.00%

100

1.00%

0

0.00%
Oklahoma

Arkansas

Nebraska

Colorado

Missouri

New Mexico

Kansas

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections, American Correctional Association.

DOC Spending Trends
Since fiscal 2000, DOC appropriations and per diem costs have been remarkably stable, only
accelerating significantly beginning in fiscal 2005.
Page 7-7

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-9
DOC Appropriation and Per Diem Trends
$500

$475.2
$433.4

$450
$404.1
$389.8

$400

$100.00

$90.00

$402.2
$385.3

$378.9

$80.00

$350

$70.00

$300

$60.00

$53.70

$250

$200

$44.62

$45.78

$50.00

$48.46

$47.90
$45.17

$44.79

$45.31

$40.00

Per Diem Cost

Appropriations-$millions

$356.3

Appropriations
$150

$30.00
Per Diem

$100

$20.00

$50

$10.00

$0

$0.00
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Actual per diem rates and appropriation levels in fiscal 2005 were lower than fiscal 2002 levels.
Oklahoma is the only state correctional system we are aware of that actually reduced system
spending over this period. In all, from fiscal 2000 to 2007, DOC appropriations rose by 33
percent, while per diem rates increased by 20 percent. More than 57 percent of the increase in per
diem costs over this period occurred in the past year.
The two most significant factors underlying these spending trends have been the steady increase
of inmates and spending at state institutions, and a decrease in the offender population and
spending at the state’s private prisons (Exhibits 7-10 through 7-12). Institutional spending has
risen by $53.7 million since fiscal 2000, while private prison contract spending decreased by
$14.1 million.

Page 7-8

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-10
DOC Spending Increases
Fiscal 2000-2006
$60,000,000

$50,000,000

$40,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$ns
tio
it tu
s
$(10,000,000) In

's
C
C
C

e
at
iv
Pr

s
on
is
Pr

ay
fw
al
H

s
se
ou
H

k
or
W

rs
te
en
C

y
nt
ou
C

ils
Ja

p
ku
ac
B
il
Ja

n
tio
tra
s
i
in
m
Ad

al
ic
ed
M

$(20,000,000)

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

EXHIBIT 7-11
Facility Spending and Population
18,000

$350

16,000
$300
14,000
$250

$200

10,000

8,000

$150

Population

Spending-$ millions

12,000

Institution Spending
Private Prison Spending
Institution Population
Private Prison Population

6,000
$100
4,000
$50
2,000

$-

FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-9

Administration

The other primary area of significant growth in spending has been in the department’s medical
program, with expenditures rising by nearly $25 million or 73 percent since fiscal 2000
(Exhibit 7-12). This increase in spending is not staff-driven. After a significant increase in
staffing levels in fiscal 2001, medical staffing levels have slowly declined until current levels are
only slightly higher than fiscal 2000 levels, despite an increase in the offender population of
nearly 2,000.
EXHIBIT 7-12
DOC Medical Spending
$80,000,000

$70,000,000

$60,000,000

$50,000,000

$40,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

EXHIBIT 7-13
DOC Medical Staffing
450

400

350

300

250

200
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-10

Administration

This pattern of declining staff levels since fiscal 2000 also characterizes department staffing in
general. The following chart (Exhibit 7-14) shows actual Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing for
the department over the last seven years. Over this period, DOC staffing shrank by 7 percent,
despite increasing growth in the prison population.
EXHIBIT 7-14
Department of Corrections Actual FTEs

Actu al F T E
5 ,1 00
5 ,0 00
4 ,9 00
4 ,8 00
4 ,7 00
4 ,6 00
4 ,5 00
4 ,4 00
Ap r-0 7

Ja n -0 7

O ct-0 6

Ju l-0 6

Ap r-0 6

Ja n -0 6

O ct-0 5

Ju l-0 5

Ap r-0 5

Ja n -0 5

O ct-0 4

Ju l-0 4

Ap r-0 4

Ja n -0 4

O ct-0 3

Ju l-0 3

Ap r-0 3

Ja n -0 3

O ct-0 2

Ju l-0 2

Ap r-0 2

Ja n -0 2

O ct-0 1

Ju l-0 1

Ap r-0 1

Ja n -0 1

O ct-0 0

Ju l-0 0

4 ,3 00

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections

As shown in Exhibit 7-15, department institutions now operate with approximately 100 fewer
officers in department institutions than in fiscal 2000, despite the addition of 2,000 inmates to
these facilities. The result of this trend has been a steadily increasing ratio in the number of
inmates relative to staff in department institutions, from roughly seven inmates per officer fiscal
2000 to nine per officer in fiscal 2007 (Exhibit 7-16).

Page 7-11

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-15
Institution COs and Population
2150

16,000

15,500

2100

15,000
2050

14,500

CO's
Institution Population

CO's

Population

2000

14,000

1950
13,500

1900
13,000

1850

12,500

12,000

1800
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

EXHIBIT 7-16
Inmates Per Officer
9.50

9.00

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00

5.50

5.00
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-12

Administration

As a result of this trend, Oklahoma has by far the highest ratio of inmates to officers of any of the
comparable peer states (Exhibit 7-17).
EXHIBIT 7-17
Inmates Per Officers in Peer States
Oklahoma

Missouri

Arkansas

Colorado

Kansas

New Mexico

Nebraska

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Source: American Correctional Association, MGT of America.

This pattern of declining staff levels is also striking in the program, administration and support
areas of the DOC, where FTE levels have declined by 11 percent (Exhibit 7-18).
EXHIBIT 7-18
Administration, Program and Support Staffing
2,350

2,300

2,250

2,200

2,150

2,100

2,050

2,000

1,950

1,900

1,850
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-13

Administration

DOC Spending Trends
The defining characteristic of the department’s budget management over the last nine years has
been a continued reliance upon supplemental appropriations, which since fiscal 2004 have
increased as a percent of department spending (Exhibit 7-19).

($000)

EXHIBIT 7-19
Supplemental Appropriations
$50,000

10.00%

$45,000

9.00%

$40,000

8.00%

$35,000

7.00%

$30,000

6.00%

$25,000

5.00%

$20,000

4.00%

$15,000

3.00%

$10,000

2.00%

$5,000

1.00%

Supplementals
% of Total Spending

$-

0.00%
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

FY 08

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Obviously, reliance upon supplemental appropriations creates uncertainty as to the amount of
resources available in any given fiscal year. This uncertainty has forced the department to reduce
controllable spending through the fiscal year until the supplemental appropriations are approved.
Unfortunately, the primary area of controllable spending available to the department is staffing,
which has led the department to reduce staffing levels each fiscal year below budgeted levels in
order to generate resources to meet operational needs(Exhibit 7-20).
With the exception of fiscal 2001 and 2005, the department has transferred millions of dollars in
approved appropriations out of funding allocations for staff (Exhibit 7-21).

Page 7-14

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-20
Annual FTE Reductions from Budget
0
FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

-30
-50

-100
-116

-119

-133

-150

-156

-200
-206

-250
-263
-287

-300

-350

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

EXHIBIT 7-23
Changes in Budgeted Payroll
$6.0

$3.6

$4.0

$2.0
$1.0
$($ millions)

FY 00
$(2.0)

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

$(1.3)
$(2.7)

$(4.0)

$(5.2)

$(6.0)

$(8.0)

$(5.8)

$(6.1)

$(7.5)

$(10.0)

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Page 7-15

Administration

The department’s policy of reduced staffing is intended as a temporary response to the lack of
sufficient appropriations. Accordingly, once the supplemental funding is approved, DOC seeks to
catch up on hiring and spend its budget. However, the fact that funding is generally approved late
in the fiscal year makes it difficult for the department to fully catch up. As a consequence, the
department carries remaining appropriation balances over into the following fiscal year. As the
department’s supplemental appropriations have grown, the amount of appropriations carryover
has increased as well (Exhibit 7-24).
EXHIBIT 7-24
Carryover Funding
$12,000.0

$10,000.0

$8,000.0

$6,000.0

$4,000.0

$2,000.0

$FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Carryover funds primarily consist of supplemental appropriations that cannot be spent due to the
timing of their availability late in the fiscal year, as well as excess payroll funding made available
by the department’s actions to slow hiring in order to create surplus funds to meet contingent
needs. The department uses carryover funds to address a variety of spending pressures. These
include unbudgeted expenses, unanticipated price increases for fuel, capital construction, and to
reduce overall department supplemental appropriation needs in the upcoming fiscal year. While
the department notifies the legislature and the governor’s office of the ultimate allocation of these
funds, they are essentially unbudgeted and may be used for purposes at the discretion of the
department.

Page 7-16

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-25
Carryover and Excess Payroll Funds Cover Unbudgeted Expenditures
Fiscal 2006
Construction
Food and utilities
Medical
Utilities & fuel
Fiscal 2007
Electronic monitoring
Equipment, maintenance, and repairs
Employee health insurance
Capital projects
Fiscal 2008
Capital projects and equipment
Fiscal 2008 deficit offset

$
$
$
$

$ 000
5,717.5
1,786.1
1,335.2
1,329.5

$
200.0
$ 1,400.0
$ 1,715.9
$ 1,094.0
$ 7,150.0
$ 3,350.0

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The policy of intentionally shorting the department’s annual budget request, with the assumption
of a late year supplemental appropriation results in the following system of budget management
at the department:
1. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the department develops a budget work plan
based on maintenance of effort and identified department priorities.
2. Once the department’s fiscal year spending requirement are calculated, the difference
between these requirements and the enacted appropriation establishes the
department’s funding shortfall for the year.
3. The department attributes all of funding shortfall to contracts for private prison beds.
The department argues this policy is due to the fact that private prison expenditures
are the easiest part of the budget to project, and that this option is preferable to
preparing for employee furloughs or layoffs that will not be necessary if a
supplemental appropriation is provided.
4. Based on the amount of the budget shortfall and the projected rate of private prison
spending, the department identifies a date required for approval of additional
supplemental funding.
5. Throughout the year, the department hedges by developing an internal spending plan
that produces available funding to meet unexpected demands and reduces the
department’s risk should the legislature not approve all of the proposed funding
request. The department also continually revises its estimate of supplemental funding
needs throughout the fiscal year, typically lowering them significantly from earlier
forecasts.
6. Once the supplemental is approved, the department reprograms some of these
resources, taking into account savings it has generated through the current fiscal year.

Page 7-17

Administration

7. The remaining resources resulting from the supplemental and department-generated
surpluses are carried over into the following fiscal year, to be reallocated internally to
meet department priorities.
As a result of this process, there is no agreement on what the budget should fund at the beginning
of the fiscal year. Instead, the department must operate without knowledge of the resources
available to it to get through the fiscal year. Without a realistic, approved spending plan, the
legislature cannot hold the department accountable for complying with the agreed budget
allocations and priorities. Instead, the department must juggle funding in available accounts to
address its needs, intentionally reducing staffing below desired levels in order to create budgetary
flexibility. Finally, the timing of supplemental appropriation availability late in the fiscal year
and the imperative to spend requested resources, can at least potentially lead to spending patterns
and expenditures that are not consistent with department priorities or legislative intent.
The legislative policy of intentionally providing only partial year funding for the department, with
the assumption of a late fiscal year supplemental appropriation has been characterized as an effort
to more tightly control department spending. However, the unintended consequence of the system
appears to be depressed staffing levels at the department and the development of significant levels
of spending that occurs without legislative oversight or approval. To the extent that policymakers
agree that the department should maintain staffing FTE levels that have been approved by the
legislature, and that maintaining department accountability is best served by formal legislative
review of department spending allocations and priorities, the system of ongoing supplemental
funding of the department does not represent effective public policy.
Accordingly we recommend that the legislature and department work together to develop a
realistic agreement on the department’s annual budgetary requirements. The budget agreement
should be developed with clear assumptions on population, capacity, staffing, capital projects,
and programs. This agreement should be fully funded in the annual appropriations process.
Supplemental funding requests should be reserved for unforeseen emergencies or developments
that were not specifically addressed during consideration of the department’s appropriation
request. In order to establish a firm common understanding of funding priorities, we also
recommend that the legislature modify the department’s appropriation bill to establish funding
allocations for major operations and program components of the department. These allocations
should be negotiated to assure the department sufficient flexibility to effectively respond to
normally changing conditions or developments during the fiscal year. We recommend the
following appropriation categories.






Institutions and field operations
Contract beds
Community corrections
Treatment and rehabilitation services
Administration

These categories should be revisited in subsequent fiscal years and revised if necessary to provide
sufficient accountability and oversight over department spending.

Page 7-18

Administration

FY 08 Supplemental Request
The department’s initial supplemental appropriation request for fiscal 2008 was developed in
August 2007 and totaled $40.3 million. In subsequent months, the department has steadily
lowered its estimate of required supplemental funding based on spending experience in the first
quarter of the fiscal year. The current estimate of supplemental funding needs has been lowered to
approximately $28-$29 million, as shown below.
EXHIBIT 7-26
Fiscal 2008 Supplemental Assumptions
Change to
Budget

Fiscal 2008 Supplemental
Initial Budget Work Plan Request
Medical spending
Staff benefits update
Contract beds update
Sept. staffing update
Nov. carryover estimate

$
$
$
$
$

(103.7)
(3,000.0)
(2,400.0)
(2,600.0)
(3,350.0)

Total Request
$
$
$
$
$
$

40,295.9
40,192.2
37,192.2
34,792.2
32,192.2
28,842.2

The key variables in estimating supplemental funding needs are the amount of excess staffing
funds that will be made available through the course of the fiscal year, and the amount of
carryover funding that can applied to reduce supplemental funding needs. Carryover funding
depends upon how the department allocates these resources and whether spending meets targeted
levels (For example funding programmed on capital projects, may become available later in the
year if projects come in below initial estimates).
Surplus funds in staffing are developing this year because the department began the fiscal year
well below its budgeted staffing levels in many facilities, and has experienced difficulty in
increasing staffing in a number of areas due to continuing staff turnover and increased
competition in recruitment of suitable candidates. As Exhibit 7-27 shows, the average number of
FTE’s in the department has dropped steadily through the first quarter of the year.

Page 7-19

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-27
Fiscal 2008 Staffing Trends
4 ,8 5 0

4 ,8 3 4

4 ,8 0 0
4 ,7 5 0

4 ,7 1 8
4 ,6 8 5

4 ,7 0 0
4 ,6 5 0
4 ,6 0 0
BWP

Ave ra g e FTE th ro u g h
Au g u s t

Ave ra g e FTE th ro u g h
Se p te m b e r

Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Current supplemental projections only recognize the savings that has occurred in the 1st quarter of
the fiscal year. Based on experience to date the department will have to increase staffing by
several hundred positions over the next six months to avoid creating substantially greater surplus
staff resources. Maintaining the September FTE level through the rest of the year would further
reduce supplemental needs by $6-$7 million. Staffing up to the August FTE level through the rest
of the year would reduce supplemental needs by $4-5 million.
Current trends suggest supplemental funding needs of $24-25 million, depending upon the factors
identified above. However, if the department does not begin to improve its ability to hire and
retain staff, the amount of supplemental required could go down much further. Department
staffing and spending trends should be carefully monitored over the next few months to further
refine these estimates as the fiscal year progresses.

Fiscal 2009 Budget Request
The department’s current request for funding for fiscal 2009 stands at $572,994.4 thousand. This
represents a $90,374.4 thousand increase over current fiscal 2008 appropriations (without a
supplemental), or an 18.7 percent increase. Key assumptions include:


Operating funds for 1,054 new prison system beds to be opened in fiscal 2009, to
manage projected population growth of 719 inmates.



155.5 new FTE’s, most associated with the capacity expansions.



$309.6 million bond program for 3,818 new prison beds.

Due to the uncertainty over the amount of supplemental funding that will be provided this year
and the ultimate level of fiscal 2008 spending, the budget request is based upon current year
appropriations, not projected spending. While understandable given the current budget
Page 7-20

Administration

environment, this approach is not advisable in that it fails to take into account current year onetime costs, actual vs. targeted staffing levels, or annualization of current year cost savings.
Exhibit 7-28 shows the differences between the alternative bases that could be utilized for
development of the upcoming budget. Regardless of the base, it is important to make those
adjustments required to accurately depict current budget year experiences and trends that will be
continued over into the next fiscal year. In terms of presentation, the base used is significant
because it determines the amount of increase requested by the department. Because the
department uses the current appropriation as its base, instead of actual projected spending with a
supplemental, the percentage increase shown for the request will be higher, as the supplemental
then gets counted as new funding in fiscal 2009. For example, using $511 million as base fiscal
2008 spending lowers the percentage increase of the fiscal 2009 budget request from 18.7 percent
to 10 percent.
EXHIBIT 7-28
Fiscal 2008 Base Alternatives

Fiscal 2008 Appropriation
Fiscal 2008 Appropriation with Original
Supplemental Request
Fiscal 2008 Revised Supplemental Projection
Fiscal 2008 Current Estimated Spending

$ 000
$ 482,620.0

FTE
4,833.5

$ 522,915.9
$ 511,462.2
$ 506,620.0

4,833.5
4,833.5
4,685.1

In developing the requested increases in funding for fiscal 2009, the department must first budget
for all mandatory rate and price increases that it projects will take place next year. The budget
request identifies $7.8 million of these types of increases, as identified below in Exhibit 7-29.
Because these expenditure increases are mandatory, if not funded, the department must covers
these costs by freeing up other resources in its budget.
EXHIBIT 7-29
Fiscal 2009 Mandatory Increases
Mandatory Funding Increases
Scheduled Staff Benefit Increases
Medical inflation/population increase
Total

$
$
$

$ 000
4,601.2
3,183.8
7,785.0

After funding these increases, the department’s priority is additional resources to support the new
prison system capacity scheduled to come on-line in fiscal 2009. The budget request contains
$24.3 million for these projected expenditures. Exhibit 7-30 summarizes these capacity
expansions, along with the staff required and the number of new beds provided. Key assumptions
include:


Full 365-day funding of contract beds in fiscal 2009.



Rate increases for jail contracts to $35 and jail backup beds to $30.

Page 7-21

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-30
Bed Expansion Capacity
Bed Expansions
CCA Davis Unit
Jail Backup Rate Increase
Jail Contract Rate Increase
Crabtree Expansion
Lilley Expansion
Mabel Bassett A&R Expansion
Clara Waters CCC
Mangum Work Center Expansion
Healdton Work Center Expansion
Total

$ 000
$ 13,972.0
$ 1,642.5
$
690.0
$ 1,257.1
$
944.2
$
886.2
$ 4,084.3
$
531.8
$
276.6
$ 24,284.7

FTE

Beds
660

17
13
15
37
6
4
92

200
150
294
34
66
1,404

The department also requests approval of a $327.8 million bond program that will support
construction of 3,816 new prison beds; purchase new trucks and buses; provide additional
operating and information technology equipment; fund capital repairs at prisons and community
corrections centers; and provide additional program buildings. These items are structured into 5,
10, and 25 year bond financing proposals depending upon their projected useful life. The only
fiscal 2009 expenditures from the bond program are for first year debt service payments, which
total $7,378.3 thousand.
EXHIBIT 7-31
Fiscal 2009 Expenditures from the Bond Program
Proposed FY 09 New Facilities
Bill Johnson
Dick Conner
James Crabtree
Reformatory
Alford
Key
Harp and LARC
OSP
Total
Infrastructure Work
Field Operations
Community Corrections
Program/Treatment Space
Total
Equipment
Field Operations
Information Technology
Total

Type
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Segregation
Segregation
Maximum

Count
608
300
600
300
300
40
100
1,568
3,816

Cost
$ 15,331.6
$ 21,593.3
$ 33,647.3
$ 18,484.9
$ 21,790.9
$ 6,199.3
$ 16,226.0
$ 76,290.0
$309,563.3

FY09 Debt Service

$

7,022.6

$ 12,637.5
$
200.0
$
696.0
$ 13,533.5

$

266.8

$ 1,097.6
$ 3,720.0
$ 4,817.6

$

88.9

Page 7-22

Administration

Finally, the department also includes $10.6 million in requests for the treatment program
expansions, as well as additional program and mental health staff. These requests are summarized
below:
EXHIBIT 7-32
Fiscal 2009 Other Increases
$
Treatment/Administrative Staff
MH staff
Medical Staff Increased Salary/Benefits
One-time Equipment
Bill Johnson Expanded Treatment
Reintegration Program Expansions
Institution Program Expansions
Total

1,224.8
2,822.8
5,135.3
168.2
60.0
562.9
656.5
10,630.5

FTE
26.5
37

63.5

Exhibit 7-33 summarizes all of the components of the department’s budget request described
above and shows how each increment build up to the total request of $572 million.
EXHIBIT 7-33
Fiscal 2009 Budget Request Summary
$
Fiscal 2008 Base Funding
Rate/price increases
Operate new beds
Contract for Davis
Jail contract/backup rate increase
Medical staff benefit increase
Program/operating initiatives
Debt service
Total

7,785.0
7,980.20
13,972.0
2,332.50
5,135.3
5,495.20
7,378.3
50,078.5

Cum. Total
511,462.20
519,247.20
527,227.40
541,199.40
543,531.90
548,667.20
554,162.40
561,540.70
561,540.7

FTE
4,833.5
92

63.5
4,989.0

“Maintenance” is the concept of first budgeting only for those items that unavoidable costs or that
represents mandatory expansions of current operations or programs. Maintenance funding applied
to the department’s fiscal 2009 budget request would support the rate/price increases of $7.8
million, $6.0 million in operational funding for the new beds scheduled to come on-line in fiscal
2009, and $14 million for the contract for 660 maximum-security beds at Davis. These increases
total $29,737.2 thousand, an increase of 5.8 percent over base funding. While we support the
bond program concept to develop additional department capacity, we recommend an
architectural/engineering review of the department’s current facilities and expansion alternatives
prior to funding of a specific capacity expansion proposal.

Page 7-23

Administration

Fiscal 2009 Budget Request Issues


The fiscal 2008 budget base artificially inflates total fiscal 2009 requirements.
The budget request should be built from a realistic estimate of spending, and
then adjusted for annualizations and one-time costs.



Staffing/FTE assumptions for new initiatives do not reflect actual practices,
experience, and in some cases, operational requirements.



The request assumes full 12 month funding for all new staff, beds, and
initiatives, rather than a realistic phase-in schedule.



The cost/benefits of the use of bond funding to purchase vehicles, equipment,
and information technology should be more fully explained. Particularly in
the areas of equipment, the desirability of locking in substantial future year
extended payments for these purchases requires more justification.



The rationale for program and operational initiatives should be more fully
developed.



The request does not address serious problems with the department’s offender
information system or staffing deficiencies in several facilities.

Potential for Significant Savings in Current DOC Operations
Our review of the department’s budget indicates extremely limited opportunities for significant
additional savings. A noted earlier, virtually every objective measure of unit costs or staffing
ratios indicates a very efficient level of operations in the department. Consistent reductions have
been made in staffing and most programs across the board over the last eight years, leaving little
opportunity for additional cuts that will not seriously impair current department operations.
Current contract rates for prison beds are extremely low and pressure to increase capacity will
likely force spending on contract beds up.
Further the department has been unable to make reasonable investments in infrastructure and
equipment resources in recent years. There is a large pent-up demand for spending in these areas.
Organizational or program realignment may be feasible, but would achieve very minor savings.
However, recommendations made in this report could potentially have a major impact upon DOC
resource requirements. MGT estimates of potential reductions are not definitive calculations of
savings, but are instead intended to provide an approximation of the fiscal impacts associated
with the policy and operational recommendations contained in this report. Exhibit 7-34
summarizes the direct savings associated with the most significant recommendations contained in
this report. As noted above, given the cost-efficiency of current DOC operations, the majority of
the savings identified are attributable to population reductions driven by major policy changes.

Page 7-24

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-34
Direct Cost Savings Recommendations: $55 million
Recommendation
1. Remove governor from routine review
of all parole cases
2. Require a prior felony conviction for
Drug Court
3. Change medical provider network
4. Eliminate CSSP reimbursement
program
5. Eliminate medical claim payment
errors
6. Eliminate Community Sentencing
Division
7. Abolish OK County Residential
District
Total Savings

(thousands)
$

(40,734.4)*

$

(6,000.0)

$

(5,133.0)

$

(1,350.0)

$

(1,135.0)

$

(125.0)

$
$

(100.0)
(54,577.4)

Implementation Issues
Statutory/constitutional
changes
Statutory changes
DOC medical provider
contract change
Statutory changes
Administrative change in
DOC claims processing
Statutory changes
DOC administrative action

*Cumulative 10 year savings from reduced inmate population levels. Additional savings could be achieved by averting
capital and operating expenditures for new facilities that would not be required.

Many of the recommendations contained in this report have indirect fiscal implications. In other
cases, there is no data available to project a reasonable estimate of savings. For example, while
many of our staffing recommendations would probably result in reduced overtime expenditures,
the actual extent of any savings realized is speculative at this time. However, because these
recommendations would ultimately improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the DOC,
they are summarized in Exhibit 7-35.
EXHIBIT 7-35
Indirect/Unknown Cost Savings Recommendations
Recommendation
1. Develop a competitive RFP for the private development and long-term operation of a
correctional facility.
2. Divide future private prison contracts into separate agreements for facilities and facility
operation.
3. Consolidate management of private prison and halfway house contracts into a single unit
reporting to the associate director of Administrative Services.
4. Streamline the process for assessing liquidated damages on private contractors to ensure
that it provides a credible incentive for performance.
5. Cap prison sentences for Drug Court revocations at a level comparable to prison sentences
for non-drug court participants with similar criminal histories.
6. Establish a research-based delineation of the type of offender and offense most appropriate
for community sentencing or drug courts.
7. Redefine the target population for community sentencing programs to differentiate the
population from those targeted by drug courts, mental health courts, etc.
Page 7-25

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-35
Indirect/Unknown Cost Savings Recommendations

8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

Recommendation
Expand Drug Court eligibility to include offenders assessed “high” on the LSI, but
that meet all other established criteria.
Develop a five-year plan that will achieve lower ratios of supervisors to line PPO
officers.
Review the fee collection process for community supervision programs.
Amend CLEET requirements to permit the creation of a special peace officer
category, with an accompanying modification of the training curriculum that is more
consistent with the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the probation and
parole officer.
Enhance current centralized statewide recruitment strategies to better assist facilities
that are not able to meet established staffing funding levels.
Mandate annual recalculation of the relief factor for each facility.
Require persons at housed at community corrections units to utilize civilian health
insurance plans if available.
The department should explore full or limited utilization of 430B pharmaceutical
pricing.

16. Expand utilization review to include concurrent and retrospective hospital review of
potentially preventable days consistent with recommendations from the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality
17. Improve the ratio of infirmary beds to inmates to improve hospital utilization and care
management of severely disabled inmates.
18. Consolidate technology expenditures under the responsibility of the Information
Technology Unit.
19. Rescind the Board of Corrections statutory authority.

Unfunded Needs
This report also identifies a number of areas that require additional funding to assure effective
operation of the department. Major recommendations that require additional resources are
summarized in Exhibit 7-36.

Page 7-26

Administration

EXHIBIT 7-36
Additional Spending Recommendations: $25 million
Recommendation
Contract for 660 maximum-security beds at the
CCA Davis facility
Budget 48 medical care positions
Budget 50 additional PPO's
Budget 42 additional correctional officers
Assume county jail medical expenses for state
inmates
Budget 13 mental health positions
Engineering/architectural facility master plan
IT Study
STG System Development
Total

(thousands)

Implementation
Issues

$
$
$
$

13,972.0
3,662.0
2,599.0
1,771.0

DOC contract
DOC recruitment
DOC recruitment
DOC recruitment

$
$
$
$
$
$

1,400.0
991.8
500.0
150.0
50.0
25,095.8

Statutory changes
DOC recruitment
DOC contract
DOC contract
DOC contract

*Fiscal 2008 project.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 7-1. Fund a full-year budget for the department with clear
assumptions on population, capacity, staffing, capital projects, and programs.
Recommendation 7-2. Modify the department’s appropriation to establish funding
allocations for major operations and program components of the department.


Institutions and field operations



Contract beds



Community corrections



Treatment and rehabilitation services



Administration

Recommendation 7-3. Continue to refine projections of the department’s fiscal 2008
supplemental appropriations needs by regularly reviewing department staffing levels,
salary surpluses, and carryover fund utilization. Current data that suggest a trend toward
a supplemental funding need of $24-$25 million should be closely monitored.
Recommendation 7-4. Approve the department’s fiscal 2009 budget request at
maintenance level funding, including resources for rate/price increases of $7.8
million, $6.0 million in operational funding for the new beds scheduled to come on-line
in fiscal 2009, and $14 million for the contract for 660 maximum-security beds at
Davis. These increases total $29,737.2 thousand, an increase of 5.8 percent over base
funding.

Page 7-27

Administration

Recommendation 7-5. Review potential cost savings associated with recommendations
in this report to achieve further efficiencies in DOC spending.
Recommendation 7-6. Include $4.3 million in the fiscal 2009 budget to address
recommendations for additional staffing made in this report, and $650 thousand in
fiscal 08 for studies of the department’s infrastructure and IT needs.

Page 7-28

Administration

Information Technology
The Department of Corrections lacks an effective system for management, planning, and
operation of its information technology (IT) resources. Management of IT functions resides in
several different divisions, hampering coordination of services. The department’s core offender
management information system is unreliable and requires significant upgrade or replacement.
Ongoing planning and work on the internal development of a replacement for this system has
been unsuccessful, leaving the department in an extremely vulnerable position.

Background
The information technology function of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections is
decentralized. While the Information Technology Unit (ITU) of the department provides
technology services, support, and development for a portion of the agency’s computer systems,
information networks, databases, software, and phone systems, much of the IT procurement,
staffing, and application development resides outside the control or oversight of ITU. The ITU’s
responsibilities include:


Agency-wide development and support of some centralized software
applications including email, human resources, financial, and administrative
systems;



Support and maintenance of the inmate database application - the Offender
Management System (OMS);



Procurement and support of telephony equipment and computer hardware for
the agency’s central office; and



Operation of the agency information system help desk.

This decentralized approach has allowed other divisions to have significant control over
information technology development: Other areas of the department with significant control over
IT functions include:


Institutions: Computer and network hardware for institutions are generally
purchased at the discretion of the local warden. Therefore, these purchases are
greatly dependent upon the priority the warden gives them in the facility’s
limited budget.



Division/Regional Offices: Division offices will often supplement the
technology purchases of institutions by procuring personal computers and
other equipment out of the office budget.



Community Sentencing: The responsibility for the development of a
replacement for the Offender Management System has been given to the
Community Sentencing and Offender Information Services Unit.

Page 7-29

Administration

The ITU has the potential to manage and support the department’s hardware, software, and
telecommunication systems. It has the basic ability to manage the agency’s current technology
infrastructure, to make improvements to hardware, and to provide for minor adjustments to
ongoing application support. In fact, centralized oversight and management of information
technology is a recognized best practice for effective correctional systems. Unfortunately, due to
the department’s IT decentralization of authority over information technology, the ITU is unable
to provide the quality of data management and operational performance required for effective
support of the department’s operations and programs.

Offender Management System (OMS) Deficiencies
For correctional agencies, the offender database application is mission-critical. This application
should be the key technology resource to manage the offender and parole population.
Specifically, it should provide correctional staff and others with quick access to inmate
demographics, offense history, behavioral adjustment, program involvement, and sentence
information. It also should provide administrators with summary information that can be used to
assist in managing the agency. We found serious deficiencies in DOC’s Offender Management
System (OMS) that create significant questions regarding its accuracy and reliability. The
department’s attempt to build its own replacement application, the Criminal Offender
Management Information Tracking system (COMIT), has been unsuccessful to date, and appears
unlikely to meet the department’s needs within an acceptable timeframe.
In 1998, the DOC selected a commercial off-the-shelf product (SYSCON) for their offender
management system. SYSCON had limited previous experience in development of statewide
offender systems, and the Oklahoma implementation was problematic. In 2000, the resulting
OMS went into full-scale use and the agency quickly became unhappy with its operation. Just two
years later, the agency’s dissatisfaction grew to the point where it discontinued purchasing
upgrades, support, or maintenance for OMS. As a result, the software problems, lack of
functionality, and programming flaws that existed in 2002 still remain today. The total cost to the
agency from 1998 to 2002 for development and support of OMS was $3.6 million. OMS
continues to be the offender database for DOC and is used daily to manage the inmate population.
However, because the agency has not purchased maintenance or software upgrades, this program
continues to be inundated with serious problems.
At nearly every MGT site visit, agency staff identified OMS as a critical issue due to its limited
functionality, serious inaccuracies, and slow response time. Because of these problems, field staff
are maintaining paper records or spreadsheets to accomplish the tasks that should be done by a
working offender database application. This has reduced staff efficiency and increases the
probability of errors in system applications such as sentence calculation. It is probable that if the
agency had continued to pay for annual maintenance of this software many of the issues would
have been resolved with software upgrades. Now five years later, it could be cost prohibitive to
bring the existing SYSCON software up-to-date. The current software is so out of date that it
cannot reside on newer computer equipment and is maintained on an antiquated hardware
platform that is becoming increasingly difficult to repair. A recent malfunction of this server took
OMS down for over a full day while replacement parts were located. If this hardware ultimately
fails, the agency will lose its most vital technology resource in the day-to-day management of the
offender population.

Page 7-30

Administration

Replacement System Issues – COMIT
The development of an offender management application is very complex and requires
considerable staff resources. Extensive agency-wide planning, documentation, and preparation
must occur long before actual programming of the application takes place. It requires not only
technical knowledge of programming languages and network hardware, but also relevant project
management and offender database development experience. Very rarely do state correctional
agencies successfully attempt to build this application on their own. Instead, the standard practice
for most systems is to hire outside firms or buy an off-the-shelf product that may be adapted for
their use. The cost of these implementations can run from $8 million to $40 million and require at
least 10-15 full-time technical staff.
In 2004, facing continued problems with OMS’s operation, DOC dedicated a minor amount of
resources to develop its own, in-house offender database program. This in itself represented a
significant departure from the experience of state correctional systems that have successfully
developed offender information management systems. The department compounded this error by
taking the unusual step of assigning development responsibility not to the Information
Technology Unit, but to a unit that had no prior technology responsibility. The Community
Sentencing Unit (now Community Sentencing and Offender Information Services) was assigned
the project, but lacked any significant computer experience, application development experience,
or the necessary staffing for this project. Currently four to five staff have been assigned to build
the Criminal Offender Management Information Tracking system (COMIT), designated as the
replacement for the OMS system. To our knowledge the DOC is the only state that has attempted
development of its keystone information management system in this manner.
The agency’s decision to have a non-technical unit attempt development of a complex, missioncritical, offender management application was ill-advised. Staff directly assigned to this project
have attempted to make progress and are committed employees, but their lack of knowledge and
experience, and their limited resources have doomed the project from the start. We found that
since the COMIT project began, little development has actually been completed. COMIT staff
indicate they have only implemented one very minor module, GED and TABE reporting for adult
institutions. Further, we found the project team did not complete the majority of the necessary
initial planning and development work that is a prerequisite for project success. In fact, only this
year did the agency hire a project manager to lead the development. This individual is beginning
to step back and complete some of the initial planning that should have been done three years
ago, but the individual has no correctional experience and no experience developing offender
management applications.
The DOC should quickly evaluate and determine the best alternative for development of a future
offender management system to replace OMS. The agency’s current offender management
application is unsuitable to meet the needs of DOC. It not only lacks functionality and is poorly
programmed but must exist on fragile, antiquated hardware. The department’s efforts to build its
own application, COMIT, has yielded poor results and MGT has significant doubts as to its future
success. Because of these issues, the agency is at a very critical point in its ability to effectively
manage the offender population. The existing inmate database could fail at any time, leaving
nothing to replace it. Staff would have to return to paper and pencil to manage and account for
inmates and parolees. Any efficiencies that currently exist would disappear, increasing the
demands on the state’s limited resources. To correct this issue, the agency should fund a thorough
review of the current application requirements and identify the optimal path for a future offender
Page 7-31

Administration

application, given the time and funding constraints facing the department. The review should at a
minimum, compare the benefits and costs of upgrading OMS, adding more resources to complete
COMIT, or adopting a different direction. This review should be managed through ITU.

Decentralized Information Technology Budget
Procurement of information technology is spread throughout the department. We note that for the
four fiscal years from 2004 through 2007, the agency averaged over $1.6 million per year in
computer equipment and software expenditures. Of those expenditures, only 13 percent were
initiated and coordinated by the ITU. The overwhelming majority of the expenditures were
purchased under the authority of wardens, supervisors, and division offices, outside of a
coordinated central plan for information technology development. This practice results in
disparate levels of information technology across the department, and significantly increases the
potential for wasted or misspent resources. Institution site visits confirmed this finding. MGT
found some facilities with modern network and computing equipment and others with antiquated
systems that were unable to run current software.
EXHIBIT 7-37
Units Making It Purchases

87%
Information
Technology
Unit
Other
Agency Units

13%
This decentralized approach limits the agency’s ability to deploy new software solutions to the
field because of the inconsistent capabilities of hardware at different office and facilities. This
lack of uniformity further restricts the agency’s capacity to develop and install technological
solutions necessary to improve the efficiency of the agency’s overall operation. It creates a
duplication of resources and a lack of a coherent, organized infrastructure to support users,
software, and development. It allows more opportunity for security breaches in the department’s
network because central IT lacks the ability to standardize user capabilities, block virus’s and
monitor staff usage. Finally, it restricts the Information Technology Unit’s ability to remotely
diagnose issues or identify network or security problems.
The DOC should consolidate technology expenditures under the responsibility of the Information
Technology Unit. A modern correctional system depends on an integrated, centralized
information technology function for access to critical information. The DOC’s decentralized
approach creates limitations on technology progress. Centralizing the procurement of technology
expenditures will allow control and coordination of the states limited resources. It will allow the
agency to ensure uniformity among its various units. The ITU has developed a
five-year plan that addresses this issue and the specific technology needs of the department. If

Page 7-32

Administration

the agency consolidates IT procurement, it could improve the efficiency of its operation and be
better able to current with advances in technology.

Decentralized Information Technology Personnel
Information technology staffing is decentralized and inconsistent in the agency. The central
Information Technology Unit has 28 positions filled out of its authorized headcount of 35. Four
of the vacancies are in the essential OMS section. Additionally, five staff with IT responsibilities
are in the Community Sentencing and Offender Information Services unit to develop the COMIT
system.
The agency also deploys IT coordinators in some of its facilities and division offices. These
individuals are responsible for directly supporting computer equipment, networks and users. They
function outside of any direct or indirect supervision of the Information Technology Unit, and the
ITU has little authority over their practices. This structure adds to disorganization of the
department’s technology development.
The use of this position is even inconsistent within the agency. Under a previous field operations
regional management structure, one region left IT coordinator positions vacant while the other
region kept then filled. As a result, some facilities currently benefit from onsite IT coordinators
while other facilities must depend on a few division level IT coordinators who are responsible for
several facilities
The DOC should consolidate the COMIT staff into the Information Technology Unit. This unit
should have increased control over the responsibilities and practices of information technology
coordinators.
The responsibility for development of any future offender database application should be
assigned to the most logical unit – the Information Technology Unit. The agency’s decision to
place this responsibility into the hands of a non-technical unit that is physically located over 100
miles away from the ITU wastes the state’s limited resources. This functional and logistical
decentralization limits knowledge and resource sharing and impedes progress. Therefore, DOC
should consolidate the staff, equipment, and budget for this project under the authority of the
Information Technology Unit.
Information technology coordinators provide a needed service to the institutions they support.
The agency should more consistently approach the deployment of these staff. The regional
differences that currently exist, should be eliminated. Further, these positions currently report to
the wardens of their facilities or the administrative staff at the division offices. While this
reporting is appropriate, the ITU should establish an indirect line of authority with these
positions. The unit should develop standard responsibilities in agency policy for IT coordinators
and should work to provide training and support to these positions.

Page 7-33

Administration

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 7-7. The DOC should quickly evaluate and determine the best
alternative for development of a future offender management system to replace OMS.
The agency’s current offender management application is unsuitable to meet the needs of
DOC. It not only lacks functionality and is poorly programmed but must exist on fragile,
antiquated hardware. The department’s efforts to build its own application, COMIT, has
yielded poor results and MGT has significant doubts as to its future success. Because of
these issues, the agency is at a very critical point in its ability to effectively manage the
offender population. The existing inmate database could fail at any time, leaving nothing
to replace it. Staff would have to return to paper and pencil to manage and account for
inmates and parolees. Any efficiencies that currently exist would disappear, increasing
the demands on the state’s limited resources. To correct this issue, the agency should
fund a thorough review of the current application requirements and identify the optimal
path for a future offender application, given the time and funding constraints facing the
department. The review should at a minimum, compare the benefits and costs of
upgrading OMS, adding more resources to complete COMIT, or adopting a different
direction. This review should be managed through ITU.
Recommendation 7-8. The DOC should consolidate technology expenditures under the
responsibility of the Information Technology Unit. A modern correctional system
depends on an integrated, centralized information technology function for access to
critical information. The DOC’s decentralized approach creates limitations on technology
progress. Centralizing the procurement of technology expenditures will allow control and
coordination of the states limited resources. It will allow the agency to ensure uniformity
among its various units. The ITU has developed a five-year plan that addresses this issue
and the specific technology needs of the department. If the agency consolidates IT
procurement, it could improve the efficiency of its operation and be better able to current
with advances in technology.
Recommendation 7-9. The DOC should consolidate the COMIT staff into the
Information Technology Unit. This unit should have increased control over the
responsibilities and practices of information technology coordinators.
Recommendation 7-10. The responsibility for development of any future offender
database application should be assigned to the most logical unit – the Information
Technology Unit. The agency’s decision to place this responsibility into the hands of a
non-technical unit that is physically located over 100 miles away from the ITU wastes the
state’s limited resources. This functional and logistical decentralization limits knowledge
and resource sharing and impedes progress. Therefore, DOC should consolidate the staff,
equipment, and budget for this project under the authority of the Information Technology
Unit.
Recommendation 7-11. Assess the role of information technology coordinators. The
agency should more consistently approach the deployment of these staff. The regional
differences that currently exist should be eliminated. Further, these positions currently
report to the wardens of their facilities or the administrative staff at the division offices.
While this reporting is appropriate, the ITU should establish an indirect line of authority
with these positions. The unit should develop standard responsibilities in agency policy
for IT coordinators and should work to provide training and support to these positions.
Page 7-34

Administration

Internal Audit Division
This chapter reviews the Oklahoma Department of Correction’s internal audit function and
handling of unclaimed inmate trust funds.

Background
The Internal Audit Unit (IA) reports to the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
The IA unit is staffed with three auditors and managed by an Administrator of Internal Audit,
who is a Certified Public Accountant.
The Internal Audit division derives it authority and policies from several state statutes.


Section 57--510 A. Penal institutions – Director’s specific powers and duties,
Item 14 requires the director “to provide for the periodic audit, at least once
annually, of all funds and accounts of each institution and the funds of each
prisoner.”



Section 74--228 Internal audits – Supervisory responsibility. The
administrative head and the governing body of any state agency, board,
department or commission having internal audit functions shall have direct
supervisory responsibly over all internal audits conduced by the agency,
board, department or commission. Such supervisory responsibility shall
include, but not be limited to, the duty of assuring that all internal audits are
conducted in accordance with the “Standard fro the Professional Practice of
Internal Auditing” developed by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) or any
successor organization thereto.



Section 74—229 Internal audit reports. In addition to other requirements
regarding audits prescribed by law, all agencies, departments, boards and
commissions that conduct internal audits shall submit internal audit reports,
including initial and final reports, to the State Auditor and Inspector. Each
audit shall be identified clearly as either an initial internal audit report or a
final internal audit report.

The department conducts about 50 audits per year based on an annual plan prepared by the
administrator and approved by the director. The IA division conducts audits of the funds and
accounts and conducts a physical inventory of certain department assets (vehicles, arms and
laptops) at each DOC institution on a 12-month cycle, per the authorizing statute (57-510). For
most audits the audit team, generally composed of all four staff members including the
administrator, goes to a prison or other DOC facility (institution) on Monday and stays until the
audit is complete on Thursday or Friday, although some institutions take less time, which can
allow the audit team to conduct additional audits in the week. Some institutions also have
multiple functions such as industry and/or agri-services that receive separate audits. Thus at some
DOC prisons, three or four audits may be completed in the week. The following week the audit
team is in the office writing up their audit, preparing and reviewing their work papers, and
planning for the next audit, which will begin the following Monday.

Page 7-35

Administration

To prepare for each audit, the lead auditor creates a risk-based plan of specific items that team
members will review. In addition to the general accounts, the audit team looks at purchases and
purchase card usage, revenues, prison canteen funds, public works (PPW) funds, and other items
of interest based on the risk assessment.
Finding: The statutory requirements to conduct annual audits at all state institutions coupled
with insufficient resources limits the number of audits this unit could and should be conducting.
For example, the unit conducts very few performance audits. Also, there have been a few audits
of central administration departments, private prison operations, probation and parole offices or
functions, or other numerous operations that are performed by the DOC or under contractual
arrangements with vendors, including inmate telephone provider, county jails or private providers
of services in the community. The only audits of agriculture operations or of the prison industry
programs are what the audit team can accomplish during the week on site at an institution. Funds
sent by the state to counties for holding inmates should be an area of strong interest to the state,
but is not regularly reviewed. How much each offender in the community owes in restitution,
fines, and fees is not known. Many fees are waived by probation and parole offices but there is
little structure to the waiver process. The list of topics that the DOC and its internal audit unit
should be monitoring and reviewing is virtually endless in a department the size and scope of a
corrections department.
This is by no means a criticism of the Internal Audit division, which, based on our review of a
sample of audits it has conducted and opinion of the State Auditor and Inspector in reports on the
DOC IA function, does excellent audit work. The audits it conducts are based on the resources it
has and the language in the statute that requires annual audits of all funds and accounts of all state
institutions and inmate funds. There are simply too many other areas in a department as complex
and costly as DOC to be spending the majority of the audit hours on the areas denoted in the
statute. Because the IA unit must do the audits required by statute, there is little time for the
balance of the agency that warrants the same, it not a higher, level of auditing.
Recommendation: The Legislature should, by removing some or all of the words “annually” and
“funds and accounts” and “institutions,” amend DOC’s Internal Audit statute Section 57--510 A,
which serves to limit the scope of what the IA unit is doing, IA should be free to audit any and
every function of the DOC, its contracts, its programs, administrative and operational duties, and
its contractors. It should be free to conduct operational reviews, internal control reviews,
performance audits, compliance audits and other objective examinations of the department that
will lead to improved accountability, service delivery, and cost savings (enhanced revenues).
Internal auditing should be more than just conducting compliance audits and auditing of
“accounts and funds.” The internal audit function within a governmental agency is an internal
management resource tool that helps improve the delivery of service and ensures taxpayer money
is used efficiently and effectively. Internal auditing is an independent, objective, assurance, and
consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization’s operations. It helps an
organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate
and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes.

Page 7-36

Administration

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) an internationally recognized industry association as part
of this Professional Practices Framework has developed the globally accepted definition of
internal auditing:
Internal Auditing is and independent, objective assurance and consulting activity
designed to add value and improve an organization’s operations, It helps an
organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined
approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control,
and governance processes.
Internal auditors in government provide a variety of services to their agencies, including:


Assurance Services (audits and reviews):
–
–
–
–
–
–



Efficiency or economy reviews to evaluate areas in need of
improvement or to increase operational effectiveness;
Financial audits;
Internal control reviews;
Management or performance reviews of an agency’s programs,
activities or functions;
Compliance audits; and
Investigative or fraud audits.

Consulting Services: Advisory service to add value and improve agency’s
governance, risk management and control processes

Finding: The IA unit does not have the human and financial resources to conduct more than the
statutory minimum required number and type of audits each year and is unable to conduct many,
if any of the services mentioned in the above recommendation, including performance audits of
divisions of the DOC.
When the time has been available, the IA unit has conducted a few performance reviews with
outstanding results such as the review of copy machines which led to the disposal of several
machines, moving to leasing rather than owning and saving the state thousands of dollars.
According to staff interviewed, the IA unit generally leaves performance reviews up to the
Quality Assurance (QA) Unit. The DOC’s Quality Assurance System was created in June 2007 to
establish a system of continuous review and evaluation of operational, programmatic, and
functional areas operated by the DOC or by a provider of services under contract with the DOC.
The Quality Assurance System is composed of three parts: an Executive Quality Council; a
Quality Assurance Unit; and Local Quality Councils. The Executive Quality Council serves to
establish a philosophy and strategic goals, to support and promote the QA program, to identify
and prioritize issues to be addressed, and to provide guidance, support, and resources to the QA
program in order to effect organizational changes as a result of organizational reviews. The QA
Unit is charged with: planning and conducting organizational reviews; overseeing the integration
of quality improvement principles into policy formulation; providing education and training
opportunities for employees; and other duties to support the QA initiative. The Local Quality
Councils, composed of facility, district, and unit heads, are designated to: support and promote
Page 7-37

Administration

QA system at the local level; identify local issues that warrant reviews; and establish local
process action teams to review issues for improvement.
Commendation: The Department of Corrections is commended for creating a quality assurance
program to identify areas and issues for improvement, to review and recommend improvements,
and to help implement change across all sections of the department.
Finding: The IA division has no charter, which is a document that describes its mission and goals
and how it will carry out it mission and reach its goals. The IA unit administrator does not believe
one is needed since the statute lays out what IA division will be doing. The director looks at risk
on an audit-by-audit basis but does not look at risk system wide or prepare a department wide risk
assessment document upon which to base the annual audit plan. Again this is primarily due to the
statute that prescribes what is to be done annually and the budget for the division that only
enables it to meet the legislative mandate of an audit of funds and accounts of institutions and
inmates.
Recommendation: Prepare a charter and a risk assessment for the Internal Audit division. The
statute should be a floor for what the division should be accomplishing; not a ceiling. An IA unit
should have a charter to communicate its mission and goals to the agency, to capture its charge
from the executive and governance level of the agency and to communicate its mission to the
audit team and to others in the agency. Attribute Standard 1000 of the IIA standards for internal
auditing state, “The purpose, authority, and responsibility of the internal audit activity should be
formally defined in a charter, consistent with the standards and approved by the board.” The
statute provides the legal authority and if considered a limitation of what can be done also
provides the purpose and responsibility, but if the statute is to serve a only a floor of what should
be within the realm of duties, a charter needs to be drafted and approved by the DOC and the
Board.
IIA standards include preparation of an annual audit plan approved by executive manager and
based on an annual risk assessment. The risk assessment is a tool to better target other areas in
need of oversight areas that are more risky or have had a history of problems. As part of the
annual planning, the administrator of IA should prepare a risk assessment. This will help
prioritize audits based on the risk associated with the functions performed by each DOC unit or
function, reduce the frequency of some audits that may not be needed on an annual basis, increase
the frequency of some, and add others based on the risk of loss of state financial other resources.
Identified risks will be much more than financial or accounting risk, so when the audit plan is
based on a the completed risk assessment, it will represent those areas of highest risk or concern
to the agency heads and as a result will identify the appropriate type of audit that should be
conducted and the necessary auditor skills needed to evaluate the area or issue identified for
review. This will help maximize the value provided by the internal audit function.
Currently, for each institution being audited, the auditing team appropriately conducts a
preliminary assessment of the risks relevant to the activity under review and includes the results
of that assessment in their audit objectives.

Page 7-38

Administration

Recommendation: Revise the annual audit plan to include the results of an annual risk
assessment. The IIA standards for this area include:
2010 – Planning
The chief audit executive should establish risk-based plans to determine the
priorities of the internal audit activity, consistent with the organization's goals.
2010. A1 - The internal audit activity's plan of engagements should be based on a
risk assessment, undertaken at least annually. The input of senior management and
the board should be considered in this process.
2010. C1 - The chief audit executive should consider accepting proposed
consulting engagements based on the engagement's potential to improve
management of risks, add value, and improve the organization's operations. Those
engagements that have been accepted should be included in the plan.
2020 – Communication and Approval
The chief audit executive should communicate the internal audit activity's plans
and resource requirements, including significant interim changes, to senior
management and to the board for review and approval. The chief audit executive
should also communicate the impact of resource limitations.
Finding: Oklahoma law dealing with internal audits indicate that the administrative head and the
governing body of any state agency having an internal audit function will have direct supervisory
responsibility over all internal audits conducted by the agency. Included in the supervisory duties
is ensuring that “all internal audits are conducted in accordance with the ‘Standards of the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing’ developed by the Institute of Internal Auditors or any
successor organization thereto.”

Handling Of Unclaimed Inmate Trust Funds
While reviewing a sample of internal audits, the MGT Review Team noted that the same finding
appeared in several prison audits regarding inmate trust fund accounts. This finding was about
former inmates who had balances in their trust fund accounts for more than one year after they
had been discharged.

Background
According to Department of Correction policy OP120230 section 1G Unclaimed Funds…”Any
inmate funds remaining in a Department of Corrections trust fund account for one year after
discharge, escape or death, (sic) may be transferred to the Special Agency Account for canteen
operations.” Generally, the response by the unit being audited was that it had “sent all of the
relevant inmate funds to the canteen fund per OP 120230, and that new procedures had been
implemented to ensure funds are distributed upon transfer or release.
Finding: DOC’s policy regarding the handling of “unclaimed or abandoned” inmate funds left in
trust funds account one year after an inmate has left a unit is inconsistent with state law regarding
unclaimed property or abandoned.
Page 7-39

Administration

Title 60, Chapter 13, Section 661 provides for the following regarding unclaimed property:
A. A person holding property, tangible or intangible, presumed abandoned and
subject to custody as unclaimed property under the Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act shall report to the State Treasurer concerning the property as
provided in this section.
B. The report must be verified and must include:
1. The name, if known, and last-known address, if any, of each person
appearing from the records of the holder to be the owner of
property of the value of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) or more presumed
abandoned under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act;
2. In the case of unclaimed funds of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) or more
held or owing under any life or endowment insurance policy or
annuity contract, the full name and last-known address of the
insured or annuitant and of the beneficiary according to the records
of the insurance company holding or owing the funds;
3. In the case of the contents of a safe deposit box or other
safekeeping repository or of other tangible personal property, a
description of the property and the place where it is held, which
may be inspected by the State Treasurer, and any amounts,
including offsets for drilling costs and rent, owing to the holder;
4. The nature and identifying number, if any, or description of the
property and the amount appearing from the records to be due,
except that items of value under Fifty Dollars ($50.00) each must
be reported in the aggregate, except property which is one of a
recurring number of continuous payments, including, but not
limited to, royalties, annuities, dividends, distributions, and other
sums presumed abandoned pursuant to subsection D of Section 655
of this title, all of which shall be reported in the same manner as
property with a value of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) or more;
5. The date when the property became payable, demandable or
returnable, and the date of the last transaction with the owner with
respect to the property;
6. In the case of a cashier's check, if known, the names and lastknown addresses of the payee(s), the payor(s) and the purchaser(s);
and
7. Any other information reasonably required by the Treasurer.
C. If the person holding property presumed abandoned and subject to custody as
unclaimed property is a successor to other persons who previously held the
property for the apparent owner or if the name of the holder has changed while
holding the property, the holder shall file with the report all known names and
addresses of each previous holder of the property.
D. The report must be filed before November 1 of each year for property
reportable as of the preceding September 1, but the report of any life insurance
company must be filed before May 1 of each year for property reportable as of
Page 7-40

Administration

the preceding March 1. The State Treasurer may postpone the reporting date
upon written request by any person required to file a report.
E. Not more than one hundred twenty (120) days before filing the report required
by this section, the holder in possession of property presumed abandoned and
subject to custody as unclaimed property under the Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act shall send written notice to the apparent owner at the owner's
last-known address informing the owner that the holder is in possession of
property subject to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act if:
1. The holder has in the records of the holder an address for the
apparent owner which the holder's records do not disclose to be
inaccurate;
2. The claim of the apparent owner is not barred by the statute of
limitations; and
3. The property has a value of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) or more, or the
property has a value of less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) reportable
pursuant to paragraph 4 of subsection B of this section. The holder
is not required to send written notice to the owner if the holder has
previously attempted to communicate with the owner, or otherwise
exercised due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the owner.
The mailing of notice by first-class mail to the last-known address
of the owner by the holder shall constitute compliance with this
subsection and, if done, no further act on the part of the holder shall
be necessary.
F. Reports filed by a holder shall remain confidential except for that information
required to be subject to public inspection pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act.
Title 60, Chapter 13, Section 663 provides for the following regarding unclaimed property:
A. A person who is required to file a report under Section 661 of this title shall at
the same time pay or deliver to the State Treasurer all abandoned property
required to be reported after first deducting there from expenses incurred in
the mailing of notices required by subsection E of Section 661 of this title and
any offsets as provided by law. Any funds or property subject to aggregate
reporting shall be delivered at the same time as the report.
B. A holder may file a written explanation of an error in the presumption of
abandonment of any previously reported and paid or delivered property. If the
property has not been claimed by the owner and the State Treasurer is satisfied
an error has been made, a refund of the payment or delivery of the property
shall be made to the holder.
C. The holder of an ownership interest under Section 655 of this title shall deliver
a duplicate certificate or other evidence of ownership if the holder does not
issue certificates of ownership to the State Treasurer. Upon delivery of a
duplicate certificate to the State Treasurer, the holder and any transfer agent,
registrar, or other person acting for or on behalf of a holder in executing or
delivering the duplicate certificate is relieved of liability as provided in
Page 7-41

Administration

Section 664 of this title to every person, including any person acquiring the
original certificate or the duplicate of the certificate issued to the State
Treasurer, for losses or damages resulting to any person by the issuance and
delivery to the State Treasurer of the duplicate certificate.
There is no exemption for the DOC or other government agency in these statutes. DOC’s policy
of transferring abandoned trust fund money to its “Special Agency Account for canteen
operations”, which was referred to as the employee and inmate recreation fund, is contrary to the
Uniformed Unclaimed Property Act. MGT inquired of DOC legal department staff about the
inconsistency of the policy with state laws and was informed that even though it was inconsistent,
it was a “long standing practice.” According to the legal department, a long standing practice has
the effect of law in Oklahoma courts and that is why the department continued the practice.
Upon a subsequent visit, MGT review team members were presented a policy revision that
changed how trust fund balances would be handled. The revised policy requires unclaimed inmate
trust fund money to be transferred to the State Treasury pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Act.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 7-12. The Legislature should, by removing some or all of the words
“annually” and “funds and accounts” and “institutions,” amend DOC’s Internal Audit
statute Section 57--510 A, which serves to limit the scope of what the IA unit is doing.
Recommendation 7-13. The Department of Corrections is commended for creating a
quality assurance program to identify areas and issues for improvement, to review and
recommend improvements, and to help implement change across all sections of the
department.
Recommendation 7-14. Prepare a charter and a risk assessment for the Internal Audit
division.
Recommendation 7-15. Revise the annual audit plan to include the results of an
annual risk assessment.

Page 7-42

Administration

Internal Affairs Unit
Background
The Internal Affairs Unit is responsible for investigation of all internal allegations of crime or
misconduct within the department. The unit reports to the Associate Director of Administrative
Services. Internal Affairs (IA) conducts pre-employment background investigations for
prospective DOC employees. The Unit has 12 IA special investigator positions, with three current
vacancies. Investigators have been primarily recruited from within the DOC and must be CLEET
certified. Some of the most recent hires have come from the Probation and Parole Division. All
four IA supervisor positions are filled. The internal affairs investigators are not included in the
more favorable “20 year” pension program.
Allegations investigated by the Unit, generally, come through the chain of command and the
investigation results are routed back through the chain of command before final disposition of a
case and the closing of the file. DOC policy OP-040117, effective July 31, 2007, governs the
conduct of investigations. Investigators provide management with regular status updates on their
cases.
Investigators perform pre-employment background investigations, preliminary inquiries and
formal investigations, both administrative and criminal. They may be responsible for the
processing of a crime scene and the handling of evidence. For this, they attend a 48-hour course
of instruction. Investigations encompass matters concerning offenders, employees, and in some
cases, criminal activity within the community that impacts correctional operations. The
classification of an investigation recently changed from a four level system. A level 1
investigation formerly was a preliminary investigation resulting from a letter, tip, or a request
from a warden of manager. A level 2 investigation addressed petty incidents. Level 3
investigations were homicides and other serious incidents. Level 4 investigations were employee
background investigations. In the present system investigations begin as preliminary and may end
there or be upgraded to an investigations if the results of the preliminary so warrant. This changed
system substantially simplifies the classification of investigations.
Allegations involving staff-on-staff harassment, retaliation, and/or discrimination are not handled
by this Unit, but are instead referred to the Employee Rights and Relations Unit for investigation
per department policy.
Certain investigators who have received appropriate training may serve as polygraph examiners
or computer forensic examiners. Investigators are assisted, upon request, by the Oklahoma State
Bureau of Identification (OSBI).
The administrator of the Internal Affairs Unit is responsible for directing and coordinating
administrative and criminal investigations of the department’s offenders and employees. He also
is responsible for the Security Unit at headquarters, Intelligence Unit, Fugitive Apprehension
Unit; and the Communications Unit.
Unit managers expressed concerns about the limited staff resources, particularly given the
department’s interest in implementing a Security Threat Group intelligence unit.

Page 7-43

Administration

Staff indicated that the tobacco-free prison policy has had a direct impact on the work of the
office. Inmates are continually seeking access to tobacco and employees are frequently suspected
of smuggling in the tobacco. Employees found with tobacco in their possession on institutional
grounds are subject to a policy violation. In a correctional setting this can be a substantial
problem because inmates are willing to pay more money for tobacco than other less available and
illegal drugs that are harder to obtain.

Cases Activity

Jan 2007

Feb 2007

Mar 2007

1st QTR 2007
Totals

Apr 2007

May 2007

Jun 2007

2nd QTR 2007
Totals

1st 6 months
Totals

Jul 2007

Aug 2007

Sep 2007

3rd QTR 2007
Totals

EXHIBIT 7-38
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Office of Internal Affairs
Investigators End of Month Report Summary

9

8

9

26

8

5

8

21

47

1

1

0

2

8

7

5

20

11

5

6

22

42

1

1

0

2

9

6

6

21

2

4

9

15

36

2

3

4

9

9

5

2

16

2

2

2

6

2

2

2

6

0

1

1

2

1

0

4

5

7

1

0

1

2

Investigations assigned
Investigations completed

29
13

18
21

29
20

76
54

16
12

22
9

12
13

50
34

126
88

15
11

19
17

23
12

57
40

Cases presented for prosecution
Polygraphs completed
Computer forensics audit

1
4
8

3
7
5

8
5
2

12
16
15

7
0
3

6
0
0

2
0
2

13
0
5

25
16
20

1
0
0

2
0
0

4
1
4

7
1
4

Out of state transports
In State transports

1
0

1
0

0
1

2
1

1
0

1
0

0
0

2
0

4
1

0
0

1
0

0
0

1
0

Total Number of Training Hours

9

25

19

53

36

46

529

611

664

24

76

197

297

Total Number of Investigator
Reports

10

12

13

11

12

12

12

12

12

Background Investigations
assigned
Background Investigations
completed
Preliminary assignments
Preliminaries completed without
being upgraded to investigations
Preliminaries upgraded to
investigations

22

Page 7-44

Administration

There have been eight inmate homicides in the DOC in the last year.

Case Files
The Internal Affairs case files and records are maintained in the central office. A form developed
in Microsoft Outlook has been used for the last six years to keep track of the cases. The master
case files were very well organized. However, the manner in which case data is kept, regarding
internal affairs cases, makes it difficult to retrieve information for routine management purposes
and analysis.
Six case files were initially reviewed at headquarters. The allegations in these cases were: (1) An
allegation of sexual misconduct against a doctor at the correctional center infirmary / case
unfounded; (2) An inmate escaped from a private contract correctional center; (3) Misconduct by
correctional officers; (4) Introduction of tobacco into a correctional institution by a correctional
sergeant officer resigned; (5) Allegation of assault and battery on inmate from correctional officer
/ case unfounded but officer cited for policy violation; and (6) Use of force by correctional officer
on inmate.
Two others cases were reviewed while visiting facilities in the Northeast District. One case
involved sexual contact between an inmate and a female employee. The female was a secretary
who became pregnant from this liaison and resigned her position when confronted with the
allegation. The inmate had been discharged from custody when the liaison allegedly took place
and he was not interviewed by an investigator because he could not be located although he
supposedly still worked at the same facility that he worked at while in custody. This investigation
was requested on June 18, 2007. Final recommended plan of action was due from the supervisor
to headquarters by October 6, 2007.
The other case involved allegations on May 3, 2007 that three employees who supervised a work
crew were involved in the unauthorized use of inmate labor. These employees had inmates pick
up aluminum cans that were saved and eventually sold to a recycler. The proceeds were then used
to furnish cigarettes and an occasional lunch to the inmate crew. The involved employees were
originally suspended with pay and returned to work on different assignments. Internal Affairs
investigated the case and the supervisor’s recommendation for action against the employees was
due at headquarters on October 10, 2007.
All investigations appeared to have been conducted and managed in a professional manner.

Security Unit
The Security Unit is located at DOC headquarters. The unit is headed by a correctional security
manager who reports to an IA supervisor. In addition, there are two Correctional Security
Manager 1 positions (1 filled and 1 vacant) who work in the unit. The Security Unit monitors /
controls access to the administration building. A video surveillance security system is utilized.
They also work in conjunction with sheriff’s offices, district attorneys, United States Marshal’s
office, and other law enforcement agencies to arrange extradition of escapees or parole
absconders to the State of Oklahoma

Page 7-45

Administration

Intelligence Unit
The Intelligence Unit is in process of being created. It will have two intelligence officers when
staffed. The Intelligence unit will be responsible for continuous collection, evaluation, collation,
and analysis of raw information into meaningful intelligence for correctional action. Information
gathered will assist in identifying high risk situations, illegal activity, and security threat
groups. The information will be entered into a computerized database that will serves as a
repository for various types of data that relates to agency security.

Fugitive Apprehension Unit
The Fugitive/Warrant unit is comprised of three fugitive apprehension agents dedicated to the
apprehension of fugitives from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The unit has agents
assigned to the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Fugitive Task Force, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Each task force is comprised of municipal, county,
state and federal officers who combine their expertise and resources to locate and arrest fugitives
from justice and gather data in an attempt to prevent criminal activity relating to the DOC. Agents
also participate in extraditions conducted by the Internal Affairs Division. The fugitive
apprehension agents are covered by the more favorable (20 year) pension program.

Communications Unit
The Communications Unit has three staff who teletype service by way of the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (OLETS). This unit is supervised by an Internal
Affairs supervisor. The unit performs online validations and participates in the FBI audits of
terminal activities. The unit is responsible for entering data on Oklahoma escapees and parole
violators. Following entry, they are responsible for maintaining the escape and parole violators
apprehension files. The unit prepares and updates the DOC escapee/fugitive Web site. This unit
works closely with the DOC Sex Offender Registration by entering all sex offender initial
information and updates into NCIC. The unit also runs criminal history checks and updates on
employees, religious volunteers, facility visitors, and CLEET trainees within DOC.

Summary
The Internal Affairs unit has a significant role to play in the overall operations of the Department
of Corrections. The average IA investigator is expected to meet the requirements of the CLEET
certification, be capable of handling diverse range of investigations, and be skilled not only as an
investigator but a crime scene investigator/ technician and evidence technician. Some
investigators may also be trained and serve as polygraph examiners and as forensic computer
examiners.

Page 7-46

Administration

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 7-16. The administrator of Internal Affairs should report directly to
the agency head. Direct access to the agency head is needed as one measure to ensure
the integrity of the agency. This reporting relationship might not be needed if there was
an inspector general position that already reported to the agency head or someone else
outside of the agency.
Recommendation 7-17. The DOC should develop a formal memorandum of
agreement/contract with Oklahoma State Bureau Identification to process felony crime
scenes. Crime scene processing and the handling of evidence in felony cases is a
specialization. It would seem too much to expect internal affairs investigators to possess
the necessary expertise and all the equipment to proficiently and effectively handle this
important responsibility.
Recommendation 7-18. A computer caseload management system should be acquired
or built to improve internal affairs operation. The computer databases used to track the
various aspects of internal investigation cases are not much more than a modified
spreadsheet. However, we noted that the actual master case files are very well organized.
Better control and supervision of these cases can be obtained from a system designed for
this purpose. Management reports could be routinely and easily produced to assist in the
recognition/reporting of potential problem area. The department’s online Web site is very
functional and suggests that the talent to develop such a system might just be available
in-house.
Recommendation 7-19. Internal investigations and final disposition of cases should be
accelerated where possible especially in administrative cases. Cases were reviewed that
case final disposition took months when the facts were present and pretty clear on the day
an investigation was requested. Movement up and down the chain of command should be
reexamined to expedite the final disposition and case closing where possible.

Page 7-47

Administration

Organizational Structure and Governance
Board of Corrections
The Board of Corrections primary authority is outlined in departmental Policy 010200 and
includes the following areas:


Establishes and approves policies for the operation of the department.



Approves the appointment of the director and confirms the appointment of
wardens, district supervisors, and other staff members as required.



Approves contracts and budgets including the following:
–

The proposed DOC budget before it is submitted to the State
Budget Office.

–

All emergency expenditures.

–

Selection of sites for new institutions and community centers.

–

Selection of architect for projects where the fee is over $200,000.

–

Final selection of private prison contractor.

A review of the organizational structures of the state department of corrections indicate only nine
systems have a board overseeing the DOC.


Arkansas



Georgia



Iowa



Idaho



Nevada



New York



Oklahoma



Texas



Virginia

The Board of Corrections no longer serves its original purpose. The DOC is a highly visible
agency with very active oversight by the legislature, the governor, and associated governmental
bodies. Requiring the board oversight of the DOC offers very little benefit and requires additional
administrative work on the part of the department. The board should be abolished or limited to an
advisory role.

Page 7-48

Administration

Cabinet Status
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is an agency that is under the organizational structure
of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. The structure was established by the Executive
Branch Reform Act of 1986 (Title 74, Section 10.1).
A review of organizational charts indicate that eight state department of corrections are located
organizationally under an umbrella agency. These include:


Kentucky – Justice and Public Safety



Hawaii – Department of Public Safety



Louisiana – Department of Public Safety and Corrections



Maryland – Department of Public Safety



Massachusetts – Office of Public Safety



Oklahoma – Department of Public Safety



Vermont – Department of Human Services



West Virginia – Military Affairs and Public Safety

The size of the department of corrections from a fiscal and budget standpoint and scope of
services no longer fits in terms of role or mission as a sub agency to the Department of Public
Safety.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 7-20. The Board of Corrections statutory authority should be
rescinded and the replacement board’s authority restricted to an advisory capacity only.
Recommendation 7-21. The Department of Correction should become a stand alone
cabinet level agency with its director appointed by the governor.

Page 7-49

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: RECOMMENDATIONS

Page A-2

APPENDIX A: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3.0 Population and Capacity
Recommendation 3-1. Oklahoma should adopt a jurisdiction-based projection that includes the
DOC population in local jails. Current and past projections have suffered from an inability to
assess the number of sentenced state prisoners being housed in local jails while awaiting transfer
to state prison. CJRC’s projections should reflect the number of persons sentenced to the DOC
regardless of their location. To meet this goal, the DOC database must be modified to capture
persons sentenced to DOC but held in jails.
Recommendation 3-2. Enhance CJRC forecasting capabilities and resources. Prophet is a
complex mathematical tool that combines a large amount of historical data with a set of
assumptions to produce an estimate of future population levels. The sheer amount of data that
must be entered into model creates a significant potential for data entry errors and
misinterpretations that can skew the model and introduce bias. MGT’s evaluation of the model
uncovered some errors of these types.
One option would be to annually retain an independent organization to assist in the review of the
data analysis and model construction and issue the official forecast. In addition, at least two
CJRC staff members should be trained in the Prophet software and its use. MGT found some
errors and inconsistencies in CJRC staff knowledge of the software, as well as in their
understanding of the elements of the model itself. A process that requires an annual review of the
simulation protocol and associated training by the independent consultant would help ensure that
CJRC staff have a complete understanding of the model. This should help prevent any future data
entry errors.
Recommendation 3-3. Create and develop a new admissions assumption using more
sophisticated statistical methods that take demographic, crime, arrest and court sentencing
trends into account. Although the simulation model is primarily based on historical data from
the most recent year, it does require the user to enter projected new court admissions over the
forecasted period. The development of this prediction is independent of the simulation model, but
it obviously has very serious implications for the resulting forecast; assuming no growth in the
number of offenders entering prison will produce a very different forecast than an assumption of
5 percent annual growth. Many sophisticated statistical methods are available to produce
admissions assumptions. Using these methods and incorporating more variables would help
ensure that the new admissions assumption is accurate and reasonable.
Recommendation 3-4. Form an assumptions consensus committee to review the key
assumptions (new admissions, violator return rates and parole grant rates) used in the baseline
projection and fiscal impact statements. Again, the assumptions and data built into the
simulation model have a profound effect on the resulting forecast. Unreasonable data and
assumptions, whether intentional or unintentional, can seriously bias the simulation model and
jeopardize the legitimacy of the forecast. A consensus committee would serve as a check and
balance over the assumptions and data used, and provide individual expertise in the creation of
these assumptions. The committee should include representatives of the legislature, executive
branch, fiscal staff, courts, parole board and DOC.

Page A-1

Recommendations

Recommendation 3-5. Expand the current projection report to provide more information on its
assumptions and analysis. CJRC’s current report should be expanded to provide information on
the reasons for forecasted growth, and offer comparisons of key assumptions and data points with
the previous year’s. More detailed information on these and other changes would help
policymakers better understand the dynamics of the estimates and the reasons for any
inaccuracies in earlier forecasts.
Recommendation 3-6. Eliminate the CJRC database’s data entry backlog. MGT found that
some data from the courts, including arrests, case filings and dispositions, had been awaiting
entry since 2004. As a result, critical criminal justice data in the database is out of date, impairing
CJRC’s ability to complete a thorough analysis of criminal justice trends in Oklahoma.
Recommendation 3-7. Issue projections every six months. Current volatility within the
Oklahoma criminal justice system suggests that its population projections should performed semiannually. The major forecast used to plan agency resources should be published annually, with a
supplemental and shorter report issued six months later to weigh the accuracy of the annual
forecast and to update it based on any unanticipated trends.
Recommendation 3-8. Upgrade the Prophet simulation software to the more current Wizard
Simulation model. In 2000, the software vendor responsible for Prophet for Windows revised and
upgraded it into a new product, Wizard; it has also issued three subsequent upgrades to Wizard.
Revisions and additions to the software have included average-age forecasting and classification
and have enhanced the application’s forecasting capabilities, as well as some changes to the
underlying mathematics of the software. Acquisition of the current software should improve
CJRC’s forecasting capabilities and accuracy.
Recommendation 3-9. Track admissions and releases in addition to prison population for
accuracy on a monthly basis. An effective simulation model reports on not just the total
population but also the pertinent features of that population. This allows the model’s users not
only to determine whether the forecast is accurate, but also to determine the reasons for
inaccuracies, and to examining underlying admission and release trends.
When fully utilizing the simulation model in the production of tracking reports on admissions and
releases, the user can answer more than just the simple question of “Is the forecast accurate?” In
the event the forecast is not accurate, the model can not only the question of “Why?”, but also
questions of whether the admission and release trends are accurate can be addressed.
Recommendation 3-10. Project the prison population by gender using separate male and
female models. The state should maintain separate male and female models so that separate
forecasts can be made for each population. At present, CJCR develops an overall projection and
then divides it in two based on the current share of females in the total population. This procedure
does not allow the forecast to reflect the unique attributes of the female prison population which
affect the forecast. These attributes include differences in prior criminal history, history of
violence, sentence length, parole rates, etc.
Recommendation 3-11. Reduce the number of ID groups within the model to improve its
performance. The simulation model is constructed around “ID groups,” or groups of like
offenders, typically based by offense seriousness and sentence length. For the model’s
mathematical distributions to produce the most effective results, ID groups should contain at least

Page A-2

Recommendations

50 individuals. At present, CJRC uses several ID groups that fall below this criterion. Reducing
the number of ID groups would allow for larger populations in each.
Recommendation 3-12. Alter the population model to include a “loop-back” feature only for
parole violators returning to prison; include probation violators in the new admissions stream.
A “loop-back” is a mechanism within the model that allows for the introduction of offenders into
the population outside of the new admissions assumption. CJRC’s model provides a loop-back
feature for both parole and probation violators. To establish these loop-back features, CJCR must
model both the larger population and the parole and probation populations.
Typically, however, prison population forecasts include a loop-back for parole violators but not
for probation violators. This is because modeling the probation population is a near-impossible
task. The data needed to create a probation forecast often are unreliable and suspect as they
normally reside in local databases and the quality control of the data is often lost due to being
decentralized in numerous jurisdictions. As a result including them in a prison model will
jeopardize its accuracy.
Recommendation 3-13. Remove extraneous fields and simplify the model. The model has a
number of outdated data fields that were required for outmoded prison policies and laws.
Although these data fields do not harm the function of the model, they do make it more
cumbersome and harder to comprehend.
Recommendation 3-14. Improve the methodology used to produce legislative impact
assessments. CJRC prepares legislative impact assessments via a simple spreadsheet with
available data. MGT’s review of recently issued assessments found that many impacts were not
quantified due to a lack of data. We recommend that further research be performed to provide, at
minimum, a “best-case” and “worst-case” scenario for each impact. Potential sources of useful
information could include jail records for misdemeanor crimes that become felonies, court
records for newly created crime codes and data from other states and jurisdictions who have
implemented similar laws. Such information should allow researchers to provide a range of
potential impacts on bed space to at least give policymakers an idea of the potential effects.
Furthermore, CJRC should produce legislative impact estimates with the simulation model, rather
than a spreadsheet. This would allow for a phase-in of impacts over time and provide
policymakers with an idea of bed space impacts and associated costs over the next 10 to 20 years.
It also would provide for a simpler transition if the legislation passes and the effect becomes a
permanent feature of the baseline model.
Recommendation 3-15. The State of Oklahoma should immediately commission an
independent engineering/architectural firm to produce a master plan that considers DOC’s
proposed expansion plans and develops alternatives as found appropriate.
Recommendation 3-16. DOC should enter into formal negotiations with CCA for additional
maximum-security beds that will become available in July 2008.
Recommendation 3-17. DOC should develop a competitive RFP for the private development
and long-term operation of a correctional facility.
Recommendation 3-18. DOC should develop a long-term capacity plan that incorporates the
results of the master plan and, if feasible, additional private prison facilities. The plan should
Page A-3

Recommendations

include revised population projections with updated assumptions that reflect additional or
modified policies and programs. Upon completion, the plan should be submitted for review by
key state policymakers in the executive and legislative branches.
Recommendation 3-19. Pursue additional privatization opportunities to obtain additional
correctional system capacity quickly. DOC should contract with CCA for the new 660-bed
maximum-security unit at Davis to address its immediate maximum-security bed needs.
Recommendation 3-20. Develop a RFP process to encourage competition for the development
of additional private capacity. To the extent the department invests in more private prison
capacity, a formal RFP process that establishes the parameters for the type of facility required
will better meet the needs of the department, while maximizing vendor competition.
Recommendation 3-21. Divide future private prison contracts into separate agreements for
building leases and facility operation, provided that such arrangements are financially
advantageous. Such arrangements substantially reduce the state’s risk in privatization.
Recommendation 3-22. Consolidate management of private prison and halfway house
contracts into a single unit reporting to the associate director of Administrative Services. This
will enhance consistency in management across of all of the private facility contracts.
Recommendation 3-23. Continue to refine standardized criteria for monitoring private prisons.
Monitoring criteria should be revised periodically to address operational quality issues that
develop over time and department priorities. Regular change in monitoring instruments and
criteria help keep monitors effective and attuned to emerging contract issues.
Recommendation 3-24. Establish core criteria for monitoring community programs and jails
that address common issues such as security, hygiene and classification, while allowing for
individual criteria that address concerns specific to a facility contract. Contractors should be
treated uniformly and held accountable against the same standards. Current community center
and jail contract monitoring is much less developed and effective than the private prison contract
monitoring system.
Recommendation 3-25. Streamline the process for assessing liquidated damages to ensure that
it provides a credible incentive for performance. Effective enforcement of contract provisions
requires timely response to serious issues. A request to invoke liquidated damages should require
review only by the associate director of Administrative Services and a final approval by the
director to expedite the process.
Recommendation 3-26. Standardize community correctional center contract provisions.
Contracts should feature standard provisions, requirements, and terms to assure that all
contractors are accountable for operating consistently and meet the same contract requirements.
Recommendation 3-27. Contracts should include language authorizing department review and
inspection of contractor operations at any time. Most states reserve the right to conduct
inspections or searches of contract facilities unannounced, at any time. Such inspections are a
vital element of any program to effectively monitor vendor compliance with contract terms.

Page A-4

Recommendations

Recommendation 3-28. Department contracts should not allow vendors to terminate contracts
for convenience. Vendors should be held to contracts unless they can show cause for contract
termination. This is necessary to protect the interests of the department.

Chapter 4.0 Capacity Management
Recommendation 4-1. DOC should lock down maximum-custody inmates only for
administrative and disciplinary segregation purposes. DOC should establish a maximumsecurity general population status or some other classification lower than lockdown status.
Recommendation 4-2. The prisoner’s custody level should not be changed simply to match the
availability of beds at the facility to which he or she is assigned. The inmates custody level
should be based only on the score level or an appropriate override based on known factors.
Recommendation 4-3. The department needs to add capacity for high security inmates. A
major outcome of the present classification assessment processes is that there are an insufficient
number of high security beds to accommodate the number of male prisoner population requiring
that particular classification level. At least 10 percent of the male population should be assigned
to a single cell, high-security unit based on disciplinary factors, criminal history, adjustment
history, etc. The present maximum security capacity of the DOC is not sufficient to meet this
essential security need.
Recommendation 4-4. DOC’s Central Classification Unit should audit and evaluate the entire
classification system annually, for reliability and validity as well as data quality. MGT’s review
raised many questions about the accuracy of classification data in the DOC database.
Recommendation 4-5. The use of maximum custody for the female population should be
discontinued. Highly disruptive and dangerous females are extremely rare and are best housed in
a single high-control unit, under administrative and disciplinary segregation.
Recommendation 4-6. DOC should expand its reception capability (in terms of beds and staff)
beyond the additional capacity it will receive when the female reception unit at Mabel Bassett
(92 beds) opens.
Recommendation 4-7. The transfer of female reception to Mabel Bassett will yield 39 more
male reception beds. Future reception space needs will be difficult to predict until enough beds
are available to process all inmates in a routine manner. DOC should review the situation based
on a one-year analysis of intake. Reception capacity should be an element of the facility master
plan process recommended elsewhere in this report.
Recommendation 4-8. Whenever feasible, DOC should contract with sheriffs for available
beds. These provide the department with a dependable source of relatively cheap secure beds for
inmates who do not need extensive programming, while assisting the counties with critical
funding.
Recommendation 4-9. The legislature should adopt legislation, similar to that proposed in its
last session, to clarify and expand DOC’s responsibility for the medical expenses of state
inmates in county jail. DOC originally estimated that this would cost $1.4 million annually.

Page A-5

Recommendations

MGT has been unable to confirm this estimate, as present payments to jails are not itemized or
billed separately.

Chapter 5.0 Community Programs
Recommendation 5-1. DOC and other independent researchers should be given access to the
MHSAS database for evaluation purposes. At present, no other state agency has access to the
MHSAS database. DOC should have complete data on probationers who are also assigned to a
drug court. Any future, independent assessments, moreover, should be conducted by allowing
researchers to access the data files independently.
Recommendation 5-2. MHSAS in conjunction with the DOC should perform a risk assessment
to determine the most effective level of treatment and supervision for drug court participants.
According to research by Festinger and Marlowe, drug courts are most effective with clients who
are more criminally involved and have prior offense and arrest histories .1 Some data suggest that
ODCs, predictably, have better outcomes with first offenders.. For example, in Tulsa County, the
largest program in the state, 30 percent of participants are first offenders, as are 40 percent of
successful graduates.2 Interestingly, many people reported that in more rural counties, an even
larger portion of participants are first offenders.
Since drug courts in Oklahoma are intend to provide an alternative to prison, and since data
indicate they are slightly less effective with that population than with first offenders, further
analysis of the needs of prison-bound offenders and the nature of the services they need to be
provided in order to succeed should be conducted.
Recommendation 5-3. Prison sentences for those who fail the program should more closely
mirror sentences given to other persons with similar criminal histories. There is no legal reason
to give harsher punishments to prisoners who have tried to change their lives and failed than to
persons who did not even try to change. In the current situation, an individual who agrees to
participate in a drug court program receives a deferred prison sentence that often far exceeds
those given to persons who go directly to prison. While this disparity may provide a powerful
incentive to succeed in the program, it seems to be an unfair consequence of trying and failing.
MGT recommends that drug court participants who fail the program should receive prison
sentences like those given to other offenders with similar criminal histories. This could be
accomplished by capping sentences in general, or by using other data in sentencing decisions.
MGT also recommends that the legislature consider capping these prison sentences at five years.
Recommendation 5-4. DOC should conduct research to identify the type of offender and
offense most appropriate for community sentencing or drug courts. At present, both community
sentencing and drug courts target the same moderate-level, prison-bound offenders.3 There is no
objective criteria for determining which program is most appropriate for an offender. The lack of
standardized criteria for participation prevents the courts from making the best use of the various
1

Festinger, David. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. How Do Drug Courts Work and for
Whom? Presentation at Congress on Problems in Drug Dependence, Quebec City, Quebec. June 2007.
2
Tulsa County MHSAS Annual Report, 2006, page 2.
3
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Community Sentencing Division. Partnerships in Corrections, Community
Sentencing Act Annual Report 2006. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, page 5.

Page A-6

Recommendations

interventions available. MHSAS and DOC should jointly develop protocols for handling various
types of offenders and appropriate levels of intervention.
Recommendation 5-5. DOC should use analyses of treatment outcomes to create an assessment
process to address offenders’ clinical and rehabilitative needs. Current research indicates that
drug courts have the greatest impact on certain types of offenders. For instance, Festinger and
Marlowe report that the intensive supervision and intervention provided by drug courts is more
effective with higher-risk participants who have antisocial personality disorder or prior substance
abuse histories than with probationers without such conditions.4. The criminal justice system’s
intake, eligibility and treatment matching processes should incorporate this knowledge in legal
and clinical decisions made to match participants with appropriate interventions; such studies also
should inform future enhancements to and expansions of treatment options.
Recommendation 5-6. The legislature should modify the statute to allow greater use of judicial
review to balance the influence of district attorneys in ODC admissions. Given the team
orientation of drug court members, and their joint responsibility for decision-making for all
aspects of the program, it is appropriate to allow them to seek other means for admission to ODC
that do not require a district attorney’s approval. The best way to ensure another path for
admission is greater use of judicial review, specifically by allowing DOC staff to refer cases back
to the sentencing judge after a short period of imprisonment.
Recommendation 5-7. All drug court participants should have at least one prior felony
conviction. This would help to ensure that the drug courts are in fact diverting persons from
prison. It may be beneficial from a public policy standpoint to admit first time offenders to this
particular program, but the budgetary premise associated with the program is that it is designed
and intended to reduce prison commitments. That particular objective cannot be achieved if
participants to the programs were not prison bound offenders in the first place.
Recommendation 5-8. Improve the tracking and reporting of absconders from the ODC
program as maintained by MHSAS and the DOC. Other than Oklahoma County, counties were
not able to report their rate of absconders. It appears that, unless they commit a new and serious
offense, most are readmitted to the program, with some sanction for their actions.
Recommendation 5-9. In order to ensure only the necessary level of funding be appropriated to
MHSAS for this program, it is essential that the number of program slots funded by the
legislature should be reassessed on an annual basis. Based on data available from 2007 it would
appear that the current need is in the area of 3,000 funded program slots, not the current 4,000
funded slots. It would be necessary to validate on the calculation on a regular basis to determine
the participation levels and vacancy rates are by each individual county. This process, if adopted,
would insure that only the necessary level of funding will be appropriated to MHSAS for this
program on an annual basis.
Recommendation 5-10. The legislature should redefine the target population for community
sentencing to explicitly differentiate the population from those targeted by drug courts, mental
health courts, etc.

4

Festinger, David. Presentation at Congress on Problems in Drug Dependence, Quebec City, Quebec. June 2007.

Page A-7

Recommendations

Recommendation 5-11. DOC should complete a long-term study of community sentencing
program participants and the program’s recidivism rates to ensure that it is reducing prison
commitments in a manner contemplated by the provisions of the act.
Recommendation 5-12. The legislature should consider expanding the program eligibility that
is contained in the statute to include those who are assessed as high risk on the LSI, but meet
all other established criteria.
Recommendation 5-13. The legislature should eliminate funding for the county jail
reimbursement portion of the program, absent some clear redefinition of eligibility that
differentiates the population covered by this provision from those who would normally be
sentenced to jail.
Recommendation 5-14. The legislature should eliminate the restriction that those offenders
convicted of “85%” offenses be automatically excluded from participation in the program. It is
consistent that certain categories of “85%” offenses are eligible, and have been placed, on
probation status but are not eligible for participation in the community sentencing programs.
Recommendation 5-15. The legislature should eliminate the provision in the authorizing
statute that requires the program to be administered by a separate division within DOC. This
would permit DOC’s director to reorganize these functions if warranted, based on available
funding and program participation.
Recommendation 5-16. The legislature should initiate action remove statutory and
constitutional provisions requiring the governor to review and approve all paroles. MGT
recommends that the governor’s review be limited only to the most violent cases, including
murder and sexual assaults.
Recommendation 5-17. The members of the Pardon and Parole Board should be made fulltime appointees, so that they can dedicate the necessary time to review and act upon the cases
reviewed. This would be particularly desirable if their recommendations become the final
decision. This combined with the ongoing use and evaluation of the newly instituted parole risk
assessment instrument would significantly improve the capabilities of the board to render
thoughtful and sound decisions that are in the best interest of the public they serve.
Recommendation 5-18. The governor and the board should comply with all statutory time
limits for review and consideration of recommendations for parole.
Recommendation 5-19. The Oklahoma County District should be abolished, and its functions
reassigned to the administration of the Central District. MGT found no compelling reason to
maintain this district as a separate entity.
Recommendation 5-20. DOC’s implementation of EBP is consistent with national trends and
standards. The department should continue to refine and improve its approach as it develops
additional data on its offender population. MGT endorses the findings and recommendations of
the recently completed National Institute of Corrections assessment.
Recommendation 5-21. DOC should expand its monitoring of the performance and recidivism
rates of offenders placed on administrative and inactive status and report its findings to the
legislature annually.
Page A-8

Recommendations

Recommendation 5-22. The Oklahoma legislature should develop statewide standards for the
supervision of offenders placed with private supervision providers.
Recommendation 5-23. DOC should develop a five-year plan to achieve lower ratios of
supervisors to line officers.
Recommendation 5-24. DOC should offer the legislature alternative solutions to problems
related to housing sex offenders caused by restrictions on their placement.
Recommendation 5-25. The legislature should amend state law (Title 22, Section 991a) to
encourage broader use of GPS in sex offender cases. MGT recommends using a fixed period for
this monitoring that is not tied directly to the lifetime registration period of registration, to
encourage its use by the judiciary, particularly during the first two years of supervision.
Recommendation 5-26. DOC should assess programs that restrict inmates from community
placement, and determine whether they can be provided cost-effectively in a community setting,
either by contractors or departmental employees. Of a sample of 1,426 cases reviewed for
community placement, 319 were restricted from community placement due to active participation
in various programs (Career Tech, Regimented Treatment Program, Keys to Life, etc.) or a
scheduled start date for entry into a program.
Recommendation 5-27. DOC should establish a process for screening DOC inmates in county
jails for their suitability for community placement, and when possible accelerate their transfer
to Lexington to verify this eligibility. DOC does not routinely assess these prisoners. It can be
assumed that some of them would meet the eligibility criteria, but no formal review of these cases
has been conducted.
Recommendation 5-28. The damaged Clara Waters Community Correction Center in
Oklahoma County is being rebuilt and will include a program component for technical
violators of community programs. DOC should consider expanding this program to include
other offerings that could expedite community center placements. These could include
Regimented Treatment and other required program offerings that presently preclude placement in
the community until completion. This recommendation may require an expansion of bed capacity
at the center, but should open up other DOC beds, producing a net increase in capacity.
Recommendation 5-29. DOC should review its fee collection process to improve consistency
and equity in its standards for waiving the fees. While the reasons MGT was given for fee
waivers are consistent with EBP principles, there is no statewide standard or direction on this
matter.
Recommendation 5-30. The legislature should modify the CLEET requirements to create a
special peace officer category for parole and probation officers, with an accompanying
modification of the training curriculum to make it more consistent with their duties and
responsibilities. CLEET should eliminate the training elements that have no relevance to their
duties, and where possible substitute relevant training that would enhance and improve their
performance.
Recommendation 5-31. DOC should establish a special unit to complete pre-sentence
investigation reports for offenders sentenced in Oklahoma County.

Page A-9

Recommendations

Recommendation 5-32. DOC should review the workloads of the Oklahoma County and Tulsa
intake units and recommend specific funding increases to the legislature. MGT found that the
staff presently allocated to these units cannot cope with their workloads. In Oklahoma County,
our review showed a need for at least four additional employees. A more thorough workload
review could recommend other efficiencies.
Recommendation 5-33. DOC should finish development of the new COMIT information system
as soon as possible, and incorporate the automation of the intake units into the process. The
existing intake process is inefficient, costly and duplicative of other, related functions. An
improved automation system to replace the existing OMS should result in considerable staff
savings, improve efficiency and eliminate errors created by excessive workloads.
Recommendation 5-34. DOC should consolidate its contract monitoring functions in a single
unit outside the scope of authority of the Division of Community Corrections.

Chapter 6.0 Institutional Operations & Support Services
Recommendation 6-1. DOC should ensure consistent staffing of the following additional posts
at OSP:


Housing Unit A Officer. Each shift should have one additional officer assigned to the
unit. This would result in three additional seven-day posts.



Housing Unit C Officer. Each shift should have one additional officer assigned to the
unit. This would result in three additional seven-day posts.



Compound/Movement Control. DOC should create compound posts that would provide
movement control and immediate security support within the facility. These positions
were previously identified in the 2002 post chart. The recommended posts should include
one on the 10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. shift, two (2) on the 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. shift and two
(2) on the 2:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. shift. Each post should be considered a seven-day relief
post.



Gang Intelligence Officer. DOC should create a gang intelligence officer post to focus on
gathering intelligence information on inmates posing security threats.

Recommendation 6-2. DOC should reconsider its present policy of funding all facilities equally
at 82 percent of the authorized staffing level. The use of a uniform 82 percent funding level for
each facility ignores difference in their missions, populations and operational requirements,
policies and practices.
Recommendation 6-3. DOC should enhance its current statewide recruitment and retention
strategies to better assist facilities that cannot meet established staffing funding levels.
Although there are efforts throughout the state to improve recruitment and retention, the efforts in
this area should be more centrally coordinated and the approaches proven to be effective
emulated state-wide. The goal of this process should be to expand the number of qualified
candidates willing to consider employment at the facility.

Page A-10

Recommendations

Recommendation 6.4. The DOC should lower the minimum age for correctional officer
employment to 19. This level is consistent or higher than requirements established in most states,
and would increase the department’s pool of eligible staff.
Recommendation 6-5. DOC should implement a systemwide policy that halts staff transfers
whenever an institution is operating at 5 percent below the funded staffing level.
Recommendation 6-6. DOC should evaluate its hiring process to find ways to expedite it, so
that job applicants are not lost to lengthy delays. OSP hires staff as temporary employees while
they complete the necessary pre-employment background checks. DOC should build on this
initiative to recruit new employees more aggressively.
Recommendation 6-7. DOC should calculate the relief factor for each facility annually. As
noted above, the present relief factor was last calculated in 2004, and is used throughout the entire
department. MGT’s experience is that relief factors should be varied among institutions and even
geographic regions to produce the best accuracy. DOC should calculate a unique relief factor for
each of its units. This would significantly enhance its accuracy in projecting its staffing needs.
Recommendation 6-8. DOC should require its facilities to conduct exit interviews for staff
terminating employment to clearly identify and document their reasons. DOC then should
develop action plans to address trends identified through these exit interviews.
Recommendation 6-9. DOC should reconsider its practice of rotating work schedules (the
required rotation to a different work shift) annually to determine its impact on employee
recruitment and retention. Security officers said that shift rotation is one of the primary reasons
for low morale and high staff turnover.
Recommendation 6-10. DOC should identify alternative options other than continuing to add
additional units at OSP, and give serious consideration to closing its existing housing units.
Any further expansion will only place more strain on an aging infrastructure that is operating well
beyond its designed capacity.
Recommendation 6-11. DOC should consider replacing OSR’s C Unit with a new living unit on
property available near Unit B. The current location affects the facility’s efficiency and security
supervision.
Recommendation 6-12. DOC should consider creating a separate maximum-security general
population facility to meet its space needs. In summer 1973, OSP’s inmate population at OSP
was 2,200; as of August 13, 2007, it was 1,237. Thus the number of maximum-security beds has
fallen by more than 56 percent in the past 34 years. In view of the reported number of inmate
classification overrides from maximum to medium security, and the reduction in the number of
available maximum-security beds, DOC should consider additional maximum-security beds as a
high priority.
Recommendation 6-13. Abandoned buildings at OSP should be demolished, provided historical
preservation issues are not violated. DOC should focus on immediately removing the East and
West cellhouses, as they present safety, security and health risks to staff and inmates.
Recommendation 6-14. DOC should continue its efforts to provide a consistent physical
security approach that addresses JCCC’s designated security level of the facility.
Page A-11

Recommendations

Recommendation 6-15. DOC should prioritize JCCC’s capital request of $3,151,463 to
construct a new kitchen and dining hall.
Recommendation 6-16. ODC should develop a strategic plan to upgrade its radio systems. This
effort should begin = with a survey of all correctional facilities to determine the radio equipment
available at each facility; its condition and capabilities; and the future needs of each facility based
on its mission and capacity. Future budget requests and purchases should be based on this plan.
The use of commercial grade radios should be eliminated.
Recommendation 6-17. DOC should formally recognize the existence of gangs in its facilities
by developing a central gang intelligence unit to identify, assess and coordinate information
related to gang members or activities. DOC should develop a comprehensive gang intelligence
system, including dedicated staffing and training, an electronic data system and both intra- and
interagency coordination, to track and manage potential security threats. This system would
provide the department with the names and profiles of offenders affiliated with each recognized
security threat group, their housing, assignment and criminal history. These data would be
available to approved DOC staff. The department should seek assistance from national
associations and the National Institute of Corrections in developing its system.
Recommendation 6-18. DOC should continue to annually assess its existing array of
programming to determine whether each is cost-effective and achieving its desired results.
Those programs that are not efficient and effective should be eliminated. For instance, DOC
should work with the state employment office to see what jobs are in the highest demand and
tailor its training to meet those needs. We reviewed documents concerning department
evaluations of selected programs, but saw no evidence of comprehensive evaluations.
Recommendation 6-19. DOC should ensure that each institution has the resources, including
adequate space and staff, to maximize the availability of programming opportunities. For
example, the Eddie Warrior and Jim Hamilton center need more programming space, while Jess
Dunn and Eddie Warrior need more staff to make their program offerings effective. Both
institutions have a shortage of teachers in their educational programs that limits the number of
offenders enrolled in these classes.
Recommendation 6-20. DOC should develop or purchase a data system that automatically
recalculates inmate assessment scores as variables are entered. This would save case managers
a tremendous amount of time since they would no longer have to compute these scores manually
each month. In addition, they must spend a significant amount of their time tracking minimum
eligibility dates for inmates in their caseloads, both manually and through the current automated
system, since the inmate’s age, program completions and other variables cause these dates to
change. This part of the process is not automated and results in considerable inefficiencies and a
very high potential for errors.
Recommendation 6-21. DOC should develop or purchase an effective automated system to
assist case managers and population management officers. The case managers must spend at
least an hour preparing a transfer packet for each inmate on their caseload who transfers to
another facility for any reason. These transfer packets contain several documents maintained in
the field file and/or on OMS. All transfer requests flow through the Population Office at
Lexington Reception and Assessment Center. Without the information contained in the transfer
packets, the population management officers would have insufficient information for their
decisions.
Page A-12

Recommendations

Recommendation 6-22. DOC should take immediate steps to address the overuse of
classification overrides in its facilities for population management. This phenomenon is
particularly evident in connection with maximum-custody bed space, the primary cause of
overrides throughout the system.. Future expansions in department bed capacity must take into
account the custody makeup and security needs of its population.
Recommendation 6-23. As recommended above, DOC should establish a centralized
intelligence unit with support personnel assigned to each major facility to gather intelligence
information on the inmate population. This would help DOC reduce or eliminate major
incidents in its facilities and employ strategies and initiatives based on a thorough assessment of
current security risks.
Recommendation 6-24. DOC should deploy sufficient security staff at each facility to ensure
that collateral responsibilities such as cell searches and inmate shakedowns are completed
regularly and consistently.
Recommendation 6-25. DOC should increase its number of male beds to ensure that inmates
are housed at appropriate security levels and at occupancy rates consistent with best
operational practices.
Recommendation 6-26. DOC should ensure that assaults on inmates are defined consistently
and reported by all facilities. Our review of DOC data indicated that there is inconsistency
between divisions on how this data element is measured. For example, the number of assaults on
inmates reported by medical staff is not consistent with the number of assaults reported by
security.
Recommendation 6-27. DOC should track assaults on inmates separately instead of combining
them with other incidents. At present, assaults on inmates are folded into a “serious incidents”
category. This data collection methodology does not permit a full review and analysis of what is
occurring in the department in the area of violence.
Recommendation 6-28. DOC should secure enough funding to expand the number of beds
available at the various security levels to meet the department’s needs and reduce extensive
waiting periods.
Recommendation 6-29. DOC should expand the number of beds available to house male
offenders in correctional facilities and community correctional centers. These expansions
should designed to allow inmate housing at appropriate security levels.
Recommendation 6-30. DOC should move medium-security inmates from any setting that does
not have operational locking systems in its living areas.
Recommendation 6-31. DOC should ensure that every correctional institution dedicates a
minimum of 4 percent of its available bed space to segregated housing.
Recommendation 6-32. DOC administration should immediately examine all classification
overrides to validate the criteria employed. Whenever an override is invalid, the offender’s
classification should be changed to reflect the actual risk and custody level.

Page A-13

Recommendations

Recommendation 6-33. Transfer the inmates housed in the basement of the old program
building at OSP and convert the area into a program or storage area.
Recommendation 6-34. DOC should use clinical measures to evaluate the adequacy of its
healthcare budget, such as mortality, potentially preventable hospitalizations and sentinel
morbid events!
Recommendation 6-35. DOC should consider using 430B pharmaceutical pricing to lower
pharmaceutical costs.
Recommendation 6-36. DOC should validate the results of the claims audit conducted in this
review, and if confirmed, take action to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the claims
payment process.
Recommendation 6-37. DOC should assess the feasibility of utilizing alternative provider
networks to achieve greater levels of savings on health care.
Recommendation 6-38. DOC should augment its disease management programs by providing
physicians with greater nursing support and establishing an electronic medical record. In the
meantime, the existing paper record system needs immediate improvement.
Recommendation 6-39. DOC should expand its use of utilization review to include concurrent
and retrospective reviews of potentially preventable hospital days, as recommended by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Recommendation 6-40. DOC should increase filled positions in both the medical and mental
health program to 100 percent of authorized positions.
Recommendation 6-41. DOC should increase its number of infirmary beds to improve hospital
utilization and care management for severely disabled inmates.
Recommendation 6-42. DOC should negotiate with private prison vendors to give the Office of
Health Services oversight over health care programs in the private prisons, and to standardize
forms and the implementation of DOC policies.
Recommendation 6-43. OCI should consider building or purchasing a central warehouse to
store raw materials and finished goods.
A central warehouse would free up space at existing shops and ultimately increase their capacity
and usefulness. OCI should conduct a cost-benefit evaluation that:


identifies the products it will store in a central warehouse;



determines current and future square footage needed to accommodate these products;



identifies all capital and operating costs associated with a central warehouse; and



projects the benefits and sales growth that would result from both added production space
at existing sites and a new central warehouse.

Page A-14

Recommendations

Recommendation 6-44. OCI should develop annual offender recidivism statistics for inmates
involved in its programs. These data then can be compared to overall department recidivism rates
to determine the OCI programs’ effectiveness.
Recommendation 6-45. DOC should assess the number of jail beds and local sentencing
options available for women to determine these options need expansion. MGT was unable to
come to a definitive conclusion on whether the lack of local incarceration beds is contributing to
the high incarceration rate for women. CJRC should complete a comprehensive study of this issue
to determine if the state could initiate any actions to encourage the use of local options for female
offenders.
Recommendation 6-46. DOC should consider separating supervisory responsibilities for female
assessment and reception functions from the Lexington operation. Due to the factors mentioned
above, we believe that the level of supervision provided in the proposed organizational structure
for the Bassett assessment and reception center will be inadequate.
Recommendation 6-47. DOC should finalize the proposed PREA policy and ensure that it
includes specific provisions for expectations and actions. The use of terms such as “as
appropriate and when appropriate” does not provide the specificity needed to address the critical
issues of prison sexual assault. Descriptions of expectations and actions required should be
specific and outlined in detail. The policy also should also incorporate the improvements
Recommendation 6-48. DOC should monitor the use of delayed sentencing to ensure that it is
not being used simply as an alternative to local incarceration. MGT believes that this
mechanism was intended to provide a period of incarceration during which DOC could observe
the offender and assess her programming needs. It does not appear that delayed sentencing is
being used for this purpose at present.
Recommendation 6-49. DOC and MHSAS should continue to collaborate in identifying
improved ways to address the mental health needs of female offenders. The high incidence of
mental illness within this population must continue to be a high priority for both agencies.
MHSAS has demonstrated a willingness to commit additional resources to meeting these needs,
both at the institutional level and in the community. These efforts should continue. Providing as
many of these services at the local level will improve their cost-effectiveness.

Chapter 7.0 Administration
Recommendation 7-1. Fund a full-year budget for the department with clear assumptions on
population, capacity, staffing, capital projects, and programs.
Recommendation 7-2. Modify the department’s appropriation to establish funding allocations
for major operations and program components of the department.


Institutions and field operations



Contract beds



Community corrections



Treatment and rehabilitation services



Administration
Page A-15

Recommendations

Recommendation 7-3. Continue to refine projections of the department’s fiscal 2008
supplemental appropriations needs by regularly reviewing department staffing levels, salary
surpluses, and carryover fund utilization. Current data that suggest a trend toward a
supplemental funding need of $24-$25 million should be closely monitored.
Recommendation 7-4. Approve the department’s fiscal 2009 budget request at maintenance
level funding, including resources for rate/price increases of $7.8 million, $6.0 million in
operational funding for the new beds scheduled to come on-line in fiscal 2009, and $14 million
for the contract for 660 maximum-security beds at Davis. These increases total $29,737.2
thousand, an increase of 5.8 percent over base funding.
Recommendation 7-5. Review potential cost savings associated with recommendations in this
report to achieve further efficiencies in DOC spending.
Recommendation 7-6. Include $4.3 million in the fiscal 2009 budget to address
recommendations for additional staffing made in this report, and $650 thousand in fiscal 08
for studies of the department’s infrastructure and IT needs.
Recommendation 7-7. The DOC should quickly evaluate and determine the best alternative for
development of a future offender management system to replace OMS. The agency’s current
offender management application is unsuitable to meet the needs of DOC. It not only lacks
functionality and is poorly programmed but must exist on fragile, antiquated hardware. The
department’s efforts to build its own application, COMIT, has yielded poor results and MGT has
significant doubts as to its future success. Because of these issues, the agency is at a very critical
point in its ability to effectively manage the offender population. The existing inmate database
could fail at any time, leaving nothing to replace it. Staff would have to return to paper and
pencil to manage and account for inmates and parolees. Any efficiencies that currently exist
would disappear, increasing the demands on the state’s limited resources. To correct this issue,
the agency should fund a thorough review of the current application requirements and identify the
optimal path for a future offender application, given the time and funding constraints facing the
department. The review should at a minimum, compare the benefits and costs of upgrading OMS,
adding more resources to complete COMIT, or adopting a different direction. This review should
be managed through ITU.
Recommendation 7-8. The DOC should consolidate technology expenditures under the
responsibility of the Information Technology Unit. A modern correctional system depends on an
integrated, centralized information technology function for access to critical information. The
DOC’s decentralized approach creates limitations on technology progress. Centralizing the
procurement of technology expenditures will allow control and coordination of the states limited
resources. It will allow the agency to ensure uniformity among its various units. The ITU has
developed a five-year plan that addresses this issue and the specific technology needs of the
department. If the agency consolidates IT procurement, it could improve the efficiency of its
operation and be better able to current with advances in technology.
Recommendation 7-9. The DOC should consolidate the COMIT staff into the Information
Technology Unit. This unit should have increased control over the responsibilities and practices
of information technology coordinators.

Page A-16

Recommendations

Recommendation 7-10. The responsibility for development of any future offender database
application should be assigned to the most logical unit – the Information Technology Unit. The
agency’s decision to place this responsibility into the hands of a non-technical unit that is
physically located over 100 miles away from the ITU wastes the state’s limited resources. This
functional and logistical decentralization limits knowledge and resource sharing and impedes
progress. Therefore, DOC should consolidate the staff, equipment, and budget for this project
under the authority of the Information Technology Unit.
Recommendation 7-11. Assess the role of information technology coordinators. The agency
should more consistently approach the deployment of these staff. The regional differences that
currently exist, should be eliminated. Further, these positions currently report to the wardens of
their facilities or the administrative staff at the division offices. While this reporting is
appropriate, the ITU should establish an indirect line of authority with these positions. The unit
should develop standard responsibilities in agency policy for IT coordinators and should work to
provide training and support to these positions.
Recommendation 7-12. The Legislature should, by removing some or all of the words
“annually” and “funds and accounts” and “institutions,” amend DOC’s Internal Audit statute
Section 57--510 A, which serves to limit the scope of what the IA unit is doing.
Recommendation 7-13. The Department of Corrections is commended for creating a quality
assurance program to identify areas and issues for improvement, to review and recommend
improvements, and to help implement change across all sections of the department.
Recommendation 7-14. Prepare a charter and a risk assessment for the Internal Audit division.
Recommendation 7-15. Revise the annual audit plan to include the results of an annual risk
assessment.
Recommendation 7-16. The administrator of Internal Affairs should report directly to the
agency head. Direct access to the agency head is needed as one measure to ensure the integrity
of the agency. This reporting relationship might not be needed if there was an inspector general
position that already reported to the agency head or someone else outside of the agency.
Recommendation 7-17. The DOC should develop a formal memorandum of
agreement/contract with Oklahoma State Bureau Identification to process felony crime scenes.
Crime scene processing and the handling of evidence in felony cases is a specialization. It would
seem too much to expect internal affairs investigators to possess the necessary expertise and all
the equipment to proficiently and effectively handle this important responsibility.
Recommendation 7-18. A computer caseload management system should be acquired or built
to improve internal affairs operation. The computer databases used to track the various aspects
of internal investigation cases are not much more than a modified spreadsheet. However, we
noted that the actual master case files are very well organized. Better control and supervision of
these cases can be obtained from a system designed for this purpose. Management reports could
be routinely and easily produced to assist in the recognition/reporting of potential problem area.
The department’s online Web site is very functional and suggests that the talent to develop such a
system might just be available in-house.

Page A-17

Recommendations

Recommendation 7-19. Internal investigations and final disposition of cases should be
accelerated where possible especially in administrative cases. Cases were reviewed that case
final disposition took months when the facts were present and pretty clear on the day an
investigation was requested. Movement up and down the chain of command should be
reexamined to expedite the final disposition and case closing where possible.
Recommendation 7-20. The Board of Corrections statutory authority should be rescinded and
the replacement board’s authority restricted to an advisory capacity only.
Recommendation 7-21. The Department of Correction should become a stand alone cabinet
level agency with its director appointed by the governor.

Page A-18

APPENDIX B: MEDICAL CLAIMS/
AUDIT FINDINGS

APPENDIX B: MEDICAL CLAIMS/
AUDIT FINDINGS
Duplicate Claims
Seven (7) claims totaling $101,876 were identified as duplicate claim forms.
Audit’s typically show that up to 30 percent of all claims by value (13-15 percent by volume) are
full duplicate claims. Not all of these claims are submitted maliciously, but they are nonetheless
submitted multiple times for payment.
“Duplicate Check” reviews check each working claim against all claims that have passed through
the ReClaim Suite™ system. Each claim has 15 attributes including patient name, provider,
contract, claim, and line item information that the “Duplicate Check” reviews. Each attribute is
assigned a score. The attributes are weighted differently depending upon their meanings and a
total score is given for the possible duplicates. A list of possible duplicate claims is generated and
organized in descending order from the most likely duplicate.
The following image shows the different areas of the claim that determine whether or not a claim
is a duplicate. The claim on the right is an exact duplicate of the claim on the left that was already
submitted and paid:

Page B-1

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

Coding Denials
“Coding Denials” was the next category of the audit to identify that each line of the claim form
was accurately coded. We found five (5) claims totaling $10,678.11 that were completely denied
for inappropriate coding issues.
1. DOS 08/12/06 for $1,809.05 – Claim denied.


Code 82947: component code of 80053 and not separately payable.



Code 71010-TC: inappropriate use of a modifier.



Code 90774: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 90775: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 99284-25: modifier -25 for significant E/M service by the same
physician on the same day is not payable without supporting documentation.



Code 99283: multiple E/M codes on same day without appropriate supporting
documentation.



Code J4218: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.



Code J1940: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.



Code J2250: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.



Code J2310: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.



Code J7030: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.

Total exceptions for this claim: $1,809.05
2. DOS 08/15/06 for $1,687.13 – Claim denied.


Code 90761: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 87040: may be a duplicate lab or pathology code and is not payable
without appropriate modifier and supporting documentation.



Code 90774: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 90775: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 99284: a CPT procedure has been coded along with an E/M
code. Appropriate modifier and supporting documentation is necessary to
ensure that the E/M code is a separately identifiable service by the same
physician on the same day as the CPT procedure.



Code J2930: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.
Page B-2

Medical Claims/Audit Findings


Code J2275: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.



Code J2765: considered a packaged incidental service and not separately
payable.

Total exceptions for this claim: $1,687.13
3. DOS 05/31/06 for $2,179.00 – Claim denied.


Code 90765: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 90775: not recognized by OPPS, an alternate code may be available.



Code 99284: multiple E/M codes on same day without appropriate modifier
and supporting documentation.



Code 99283: multiple E/M codes on same day without appropriate modifier
and supporting documentation.

Total exceptions for this claim: $2,179.00
4. Claim for $1,908.30 – Claim denied.


Medical records provided are not adequate to determine if services are
considered inpatient or outpatient with observation care only.

Total exceptions for this claim: $1,908.30.
5. Claim for $3,094.63 – Claim denied.


Code 90765: non-allowed item or service for OPPS. Code not recognized by
OPPS, alternate code may be available. Code is also a component of
comprehensive procedure 36600, 51702 that is allowed if an appropriate
NCCI modifier is present.



Code 70450-TC: inappropriate use of modifier.



Code 51702: comprehensive code paired with another CPT component code
for Emergency Room services.



Code 90772: component of comprehensive procedure 90765, 36600, 51702
that is allowed if an appropriate NCCI modifier is present. Injection is also
coded but no substance has been coded.



Code 90774: code not recognized by OPPS, alternate code may be available.
Code is also a component of comprehensive procedure 90765, 36600, 51702
that is allowed if an appropriate NCCI modifier is present.



Code 90774-59: non-allowed item or service for OPPS. Code not recognized
by OPPS, alternate code may be available.

Total exceptions for this claim: $3,094.63

Page B-3

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

Potential Denials
Potential denials represent the next category of the audit and includes claims where additional
medical record information is required before making a final determination on the claim’s
validity. Three (3) claims totaling $66,118.55 would not have been paid without requesting
medical records and itemization to support units and dosage of Hemodialysis treatment drugs.
Two common issues with dialysis billing are
:
1. Number of treatments. Treatments are typically scheduled in advance for
several weeks to a month at a time. Some treatments can be missed. Billing for
a scheduled treatment that did not occur is not uncommon. In order to avoid
such errors, comparing the claim form to the medical record and the itemized
bill is important.
2. Units and dosages of drugs such as Epoetin and other high cost drugs.
Billing for drugs that were ordered but not used is not uncommon. Sometimes
the drugs cannot be saved and therefore, depending on why a treatment was
missed, may be billable by the provider. The record should indicate why a
treatment was missed and what amount of the drug may have been rendered
useless. In order to avoid such errors, comparing the claim form to the medical
record and the itemized bill is important.

Line Item Exceptions
Total line item exceptions for codes that should not be paid: $14,992.53
This category of the audit was to identify line item exceptions for codes that should not have been
paid.
1. DOS 07/23/06 for $1,204.00 – Line item exception for code 99283 ($97.00).
Medical visit on same day as a procedure without appropriate modifier and
two E/M codes on same date.
Total exceptions for this claim: $97.00
2. DOS 06/30/06 for $820.00 – Line item exception for code 99283-26
($183.00). Inappropriate use of modifier.
Total exceptions for this claim: $183.00
3. DOS 07/28/06 for $1,218.50 – Line item exception for code 99283-26
($183.00). Inappropriate use of modifier.
Total exceptions for this claim: $183.00
4. DOS 11/24/06 for $773.43 - Line item exception for code 99282 ($278.00).
Medical visit on same day as a procedure without appropriate modifier.
Total exceptions for this claim: $278.00

Page B-4

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

5. Claim for $1,245.00


Code 90760: component code of comprehensive procedure 23650 that is
allowed if an appropriate modifier is present. ($157.00)



Code 73030-TC: inappropriate use of modifier. Duplicate radiology code.
Add modifier if documentation supports use to differentiate services,
otherwise duplicate code may not be paid. ($408.00)

Total exceptions for this claim: $565.00
6. Claim for $365.10


Code 99282: medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($147.50)



Code 99282: medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($96.50)



Code J2175: Packaged incidental service not separately payable. ($16.25)



Code J2550: Packaged incidental service not separately payable. ($18.35)

Total exceptions for this claim: $278.60
7. Claim for $289.50


Code 99282: medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($147.50)



Code 99282: medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($96.50)

Total exceptions for this claim: $244.00
8. Claim for $1,514.20


Code 90772-59: injection is coded but substance injected is not coded.
($147.00)



Code 99284-25: inappropriate use of modifier. ($468.00)

Total exceptions for this claim: $615.00
9. Claim for $2,335.31
 Code 99284-25: no records to support use of modifier. ($304.45)
Total exceptions for this claim: $304.45
10. Claim for $623.15


Code 99284: medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($353.72)

Total exceptions for this claim: $353.72
Page B-5

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

11. Claim for $1,234.88


Code 73130-RTTC: inappropriate use of modifier. ($145.70)



Code 90772: Component of comprehensive procedure 12002, 29130 that is
allowed if an appropriate NCCI modifier is present. Injection is coded but
substance injected is not coded. ($63.93)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($353.72)

Total exceptions for this claim: $563.35
12. Claim for $1,105.35


Code 73030-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. Duplicate radiology
code. Add modifier if documentation supports use to differentiate services,
otherwise duplicate code may not be paid. ($408.00)



Code 90774: Component code of comprehensive procedure 23650 that is
allowed if an appropriate NCCI modifier is present. ($78.00)



Code 99283: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($195.50)



Code 99283: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($108.00)



Code J2250: Packaged incidental service not separately payable. ($49.00)



Code J2270: Packaged incidental service not separately payable. ($16.35)

Total exceptions for this claim: $854.85
13. Claim for $1,055.00


Code 71010-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. ($127.00)



Code 99283: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($195.50)



Code 99283: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($108.00)

Total exceptions for this claim: $430.50

Page B-6

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

14. Claim for $2,234.50


Code 71010-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. ($127.00)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($339.50)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($158.50)

Total exceptions for this claim: $625.00
15. Claim for $1,388.35


Code 71010-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. ($127.00)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($339.50)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($158.50)



Code J2270: Packaged incidental service not separately payable. ($16.35)
Total exceptions for this claim: $641.35

16. Claim for $394.00


Code 99282: Multiple E/M codes on same day without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($147.50)



Code 99282: Multiple E/M codes on same day without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($96.50)

Total exceptions for this claim: $244.00
17. Claim for $2,532.50


Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($339.50)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($158.50)

Total exceptions for this claim: $498.00
18. Claim for $1,418.80


Code 71010-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. ($135.99



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($353.72)

Total exceptions for this claim: $489.71

Page B-7

Medical Claims/Audit Findings

19. Claim for $1.299.00


Code 71010-TC: Inappropriate use of modifier. ($127.00)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. ($339.50)



Code 99284: Medical visit on same day as procedure without appropriate
modifier/supporting documentation. Multiple E/M codes on same day without
appropriate modifier/supporting documentation. ($158.50)

Total exceptions for this claim: $625.00
20. Claim for $7,673.00


Code V2632: Code is for implant device and or supplies for procedure
performed in an Ambulatory Surgery setting. Payment rate should be based on
provider’s cost for device/supply. ($505.00)

Total exceptions for this claim: $505.00
21. Claim for $11,914.00


Code V2632: Code is for implant device and or supplies for procedure
performed in an Ambulatory Surgery setting. Payment rate should be based on
provider’s cost for device/supply. ($505.00)



Code 67010-LT: Component code of comprehensive procedure 66984-LT that
may be allowed if an appropriate NCCI modifier is present. ($5,909.00)

Total exceptions for this claim: $6,414.00

In addition, a sampling of medical records were reviewed by a certified professional coding
expert to ensure that the information obtained from the medical record supported the claim
generated by the provider and subsequently reimbursed by the DOC. The benefits of an active
claim audit program are:


confirming services reimbursed are accurately documented in a patient’s
medical record.



obtaining and organizing records from services provided within the
community assists the DOC in ensuring quality continuity of care as the
inmate patient transitions through the system and ultimately back to the
community.

Page B-8

APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF CCA COSTS

APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF
CCA COSTS
CCA - Annual Cost Breakdown-Davis Expansion

Category

Total $

Wages, Salaries & Benefits
Health Services
Food Service
Utilities
Clothing and Shoes
Fire Insurance
Mail and Postage
Supplies
Training & Tuition
Corporate Overhead
Profit
Indirect Costs (a)
Other-please detail (b)
Capitalization
Performance Bond
Total

$0.00

Staffing, FTEs
Executive Office
Business Support
Maintenance
Food Service
Health Care
Programs
Security
Other-please detail (c)
Total

#

Programs (d)

$

One-Year
Contract

5 Year
Contract

Per Diem
Pop=660

Per Diem
Pop=660

$0.00

$0.00

Year to Year Pricing for 5 Years
Year 1

$0.00

$0.00

Year 3

$0.00

Year 4

$0.00

Year 5

$0.00

0
One-Year
Contract

5 Year
Contract

Year to Year Pricing for 5 Years
Year 1

Substance Abuse*

Year 2

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

1

*2

Education
Recreation
Library
Other-please detail (e)
Total

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

*1: % of population in program
*2: % of population in program
(a) Indirect Costs: Repair & Maint., Refuse Svcs, Leases & Rentals
(b) Other Operating: Legal Svcs, Inmate Wages, Professional Service Fees, Travel & Entertainment, Misc. Taxes & License
Fees and Depreciation of Fixed Assets & Leasehold Improvements.
(c) Other Staffing: Warehouse and Commissary staff
(d) Programs: Per Diem amounts are expressed as programming costs per total inmate population
(e) Other Programs Costs: Salaries & Benefits of Correctional Officers and Administrative staff associated with Programs

Confidential information not subject to disclosure

Page C-1

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW LIST

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEWS
The MGT project team wishes to thank the members and staff of the Oklahoma State Legislature
for their commitment to this project and their personal involvement in providing information,
access and feedback as we proceeded to assess the complex issues involved in this review. We
also extend our appreciation to Director Justin Jones and his executive staff who facilitated
ensuring that the project team had complete access to staff, documents, facilities, and policies
during the course of this review. Similarly we extend our appreciation to Commissioner Teri
White and the staff of the Department of Mental and Substance Abuse Services for facilitating
our review of the drug court programs. The project team also acknowledges the openness,
commitment, and cooperation extended to its team members during its visits with Department of
Corrections executives and administrators, staff of the Criminal Justice Resource Center,
association leaders, contracted auditors, criminal justice leaders, and community leaders. We would
like to thank the following individuals that participated in interviews and focus groups and shared
their views with the MGT team.
Adams, Gerald
Adams, Jim
Adams, Larry
Addison, Mike
Adkins, Sandra
Aldridge, Mark
Aldridge, Ray
Alexander, James
Alexander, Terry
Alford, Anita
Allen, Jimmie
Alston, Denise
Altshuler, Katie
Anderson, Marilyn
Anderson, Michele
Argeropulos, Peter
Arnold, Eldon
Bacurch, Connie
Bailey, Brad
Baker, Duane
Baker, Trish
Baksh, Gharzuddin
Barlow, William
Barnard, Jason
Barrett, Casi
Baza, Judith
Bear, Carl
Beasley, Chad
Beggs, DeWayne
Belt, Stacey
Bennett, Phillip
Berry, Antwoine
Berry, Kelly
Birchfield, Dr. Debra

Chief of Staff, Office of Governor Brad Henry
Facility Training Officer, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chaplain, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Human Resources Manager, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Correctional Captain, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
President, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 147
Instructor, Davis Correctional Facility
Unit C Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Administrative Specialist, Lawton Community Correctional Center
Business Manager, Field Operations Division, Department of Corrections
Correctional Sergeant, Disciplinary, Lawton Correctional Center
Counselor to the Speaker, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Fiscal Policy Analyst, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Correctional Training Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Sr. Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, CiviGenics
Construction Maintenance Administrator, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Trainer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Farm Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Horizons Faith Based Program Coordinator, Davis Correctional Facility
Teacher, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Internal Auditor, Department of Corrections
Training Manager, Davis Correctional Facility
Lieutenant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Commissary Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Clerk, Records Office, Lawton Correctional Center
Acting B-Unit Manager/Food Service Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Security Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Sheriff, Cleveland County
Manager, Canteen Correctional Services, Davis Correctional Facility
Psychological Clinician, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Shift Supervisor, Davis Correctional Facility
C Unit, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Clinical Director, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center

Page D-1

Interviews

Bond, Lee
Boone, Bobby
Boone, Donna
Boone, Joe
Bornheim, Bruce
Bouziden, Chase
Bowen, Becky
Bowen, Mark
Bowen, Vicki
Bowers, Wayne
Bowler, Paulette
Boyd, Bill
Boyd, Ph.D., Ann
Boyer, Debbie
Bradley, Phil
Braley, Dave
Brandon, Philip
Bredel, Charlene
Bredel, Steve
Breslin, Greg
Brooks, Anne
Brooks, Brenda
Brooks, Greg
Brooks, Melinda
Brown, David
Brown, Ronnie
Brown, Todd
Bruce, Kim
Bryan, Cheryl
Bryant, Farron
Bryant, Robert
Buchanan, Janice
Burlingame, Lisa
Burton, Cara
Butler, Teresa
Byerly, Alisia
Byrd, Doug
Cagle, Mike
Caldwell, Dean
Candler, Alonzo
Cantrell, Dennis
Capros, Sandy
Carla King
Carpenter, Mike
Carr, Michael
Carson, Allyson
Carswell, Barbara
Carter, Michael D.
Carter, Pam
Carter, Shelly

Industrial Coordinator, Oklahoma Correctional Industries
Deputy Director, Institutions, Department of Corrections
Private Prison Monitor
Agri-Services, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Case Manager Supervisor, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Correctional Officer, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Unit G Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Assistant Warden, Security, Lawton Correctional Center
Canteen Supervisor, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Material Management Supervisor, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Food Service Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Assistant Warden, Davis Correctional Facility
Clinical Coordinator, Mental Health Services, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Administrator, Corrections Quality Assurance, Department of Corrections
Corporal, Key Control Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Administrative Manager, Ponca City Probation & Parole
Assistant District Supervisor, Frederick Community Work Center
Business Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Teacher, James Crabtree Correctional Center
RTP Unit Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Secretary to the Deputy Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Unit C Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Administrative Programs Officer, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Records Officer, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Quality Assurance Manager, Davis Correctional Facility
Correctional Security Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Law Library, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Assistant to the Warden, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Construction Maintenance Administrator, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Unit D Manager, Davis Correctional Facility
Director of Budget and Performance Review, House of Representatives
COMIT Project Coordinator, Department of Corrections
Probation/Parole Officer, Southeast District Community Corrections
Customer Service Representative, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Secretary to the Warden, Davis Correctional Facility
Case Management Coordinator, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Unit D Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Assistant Warden, Programs, Lawton Correctional Center
Captain, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Maintenance Supervisor, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Manager, Substance Abuse Treatment Program, Davis Correctional Facility
Deputy Warden, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Northwest District
Victims' Services Coordinator, Attorney General's Office
Health Service Administrator, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chief of Unit Management, Davis Correctional Facility
Correctional Records Officer, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Health Information Technician, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center

Page D-2

Interviews

Cartwright, Joanne
Casey, Levi
Cayot, Shawna
Caywood, Rick
Cearly, Sandra
Cheek, Carolyn
Chrisman, Jerry
Clark, Rebecka
Coats, Randy
Cobb, Robin
Coffman, Don
Colbert, J.D.
Collier, Barbara
Collins, Karen
Collins, Kevin
Collins, Kip
Compton, B.J.
Cook, Fletta
Cook, Wayne
Cooper, Kathy
Corn, Sen. Kenneth
Corr, Larry
Cottrell, Rita
Cowan, Darla
Cox, Dolly
Craig, Harvey
Craig, Matthew
Crampton, Ralph
Crenshaw, Terry
Crites, Carl
Crow, Jo
Crutchfield, Sen.
Johnnie
Cummins, Jerry
Cunningham, Dennis
Curtis, Roberta
Davenport, Teressa
David, Gerald
Davis, Crystal
Davis, Dick
Davis, John
Davis, Patty
Davis, Wendell
DeCamp, Sherry
DeChamp, Cody
Delaney, Louis
Dennis, Chad
Denny, Joe
Denton, Robert
Dickerson, David
Dickerson, Tonia
Dillard, Peggy
Dockrey, Lonnie

Correctional Officer, Davis Correctional Facility
Lieutenant, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Food Service Manager, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Correctional Sergeant, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Mailroom Supervisor, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Deputy Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Case Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Maintenance Administrator, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Records Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Administrator, Riverside Correctional Center, Tulsa District
Administrator, Oklahoma Correctional Industries
Stillwater Probation & Parole
Corporal, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Lieutenant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Corrections Industrial Manager, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Human Resources Assistant, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Food Service Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Automotive Engine Mechanic, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Sex Offender Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections
State Senator
Correctional Counselor, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Human Resources, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Case Manager, B-Unit, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Information Systems Manager, Information Technology, Department of Corrections
Food Service Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Security Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Safety Consultant, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Acting Business Manager, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Construction/Maintenance Technician, Enid Community Corrections Center
Canteen Supervisor, Davis Correctional Facility
State Senator
Career Tech/Instructor, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Retired Administrator, Private Prison Unit
Administrative Program Officer, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Internal Auditor, Department of Corrections
Corrections Industrial Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Altus Probation & Parole
Administrator, Agri-Services Unit, Department of Corrections
Records Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Administrator, Classification and Population, Department of Corrections
Chief of Security, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Correctional Case Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Captain, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Human Resources Director, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Correctional Lieutenant, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Probation/Parole Officer, Southwest District Community Corrections
Chief of Security, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Unit Manager, MSU, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Records Office Supervisor, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chief of Security’s Secretary, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Corrections Officer, Davis Correctional Facility

Page D-3

Interviews

Donnelly, Patrick
Doris, Debbie
Dowell, Randy
Downing, Janet
Drawbridge, Jay
Duncan, Rep. Rex
Dunkle, Michael
Edens, George
Edwards, Tom
Ellington, Dr. Bill
Ellis, Steve
Ellis, Tracy
Espe, Arden
Estraca, Mitzi
Evan, Arnold
Evans, Edward "Ed"
Everett, L.
Ezell, Mike
Fatkin, Pat
Faulk, LaTanya
Fields, Sue
Findley, Shane
Fletcher, Danny
Fletcher, Jimmy
Flint, John
Flores, Josie
Floyd, George
Ford, Frances
Fowler, Don
Francis, Capt. William
Franklin, Eric
Franks, Jeff
Frech, Chris
Frech, Katryna
Frost, Katy
Frost, Leon
Fullerton, Robbie
Gaff, Jody
Galavil, Charles
Gallagher, John
Gandy, Darryl
Gandy, Sandra
Gann, Mary
Gantz, Brian
Garcia, John
Garza, Carrie
Gibson, Bill
Gilley, C.W.
Gilliam, Milton
Givens, Sharon
Glanville, Matt
Glanz, Stanley

Internal Auditor, Department of Corrections
Assistant to the Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Director of Fiscal Division, Oklahoma State Senate
Case Manager , Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Chaplain, James Crabtree Correctional Center
State Representative; Chairman, Judiciary & Public Safety
District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Southeast District
Administrative Programs Officer–Procedures, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Probation & Parole Officer, Stillwater Probation & Parole
Mental Health Director, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Correctional Lieutenant, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Case Manager, MSU, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Material Management Specialist–Property, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Maintenance Supervisor, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Associate Director, Field Operations, Department of Corrections
Correctional Security Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Construction Maintenance Administrator, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Case Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Food Service, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Procedures Officer, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Unit Manager, Davis Correctional Facility
Assistant Maintenance Administrator, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Probation/Parole Officer, Southwest District Community Corrections
Classification Chief, Lawton Correctional Center
Probation and Parole Officer, Lawton Probation and Parole Office
Administrator, Information Technology, Department of Corrections
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Corporal, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Security Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Sergeant, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Assistant District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Northwest District
Health Services Administrator, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Nurse Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Unit B Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Victims' Services Coordinator, Department of Corrections
Case Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Correctional Security Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Contract Monitor, Lawton Correctional Center and Davis Correctional Facility
Food Service Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Unit A Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Teacher, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit B Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Correctional Officer, Disciplinary, Lawton Correctional Center
Correctional Health Services Administrator, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Executive Assistant, Compliance, Lawton Correctional Center
Correctional Captain, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Administrator, Parole and Interstate Services, Department of Corrections
Records Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Media Specialist, Communications Division, Oklahoma State Senate
Sheriff, Tulsa County

Page D-4

Interviews

Glasco, Joe
Gragg, Stephen
Graham, David
Graham, Dee
Graumann, Debra
Gray, Eric S.
Gray, Jeff
Greefelder, Rebecca
Green, Jimmy
Green, Tonya
Greenway, Bessie
Gregg, Michael
Gribsby, Jarrod
Griddine, Rodney
Grimes, Denise
Guffy, Becky
Gulbronson, Eric
Guthrie, Ron
Gwin, Mike
Gwin, Robert
Hadley, Billy
Halvorson, Melissa
Hamilton, Inez
Hampton, Tom
Hankins, Joe
Harkins, Vicky
Harris, Jim
Harvat, Elizabeth
Headrick, Janice
Hearod, Vicki
Helms, David
Hendrick, Howard
Hendrix, Christi
Henneke, David C.
Herbert, Larry
Hickerson, Karylen
Hicks, Randy
Hill, Tamara
Hines, Reginald
Hofer, Becky
Holding, Wanda
Holland, Anne
Holloway, Kenny
Holloway, Terry
Honsker, Buddy
Hooper, Shawn
Hoover, James
Horan, Jonathan
Hormel, Betsy
Houck, David
Howard, Stephanie
Howell, Dwayne
Hubbell, Linda

Chief of Security, Earl A. Davis Community Work Center
Health Services Administrator, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Canteen Supervisor, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Health Services Administrator, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Vice-President and Corporate Counsel, Avalon Correctional Services
Health Services Administrator, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Secretary, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Deputy Warden, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Security Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Case Management Coordinator, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Probation/Parole Officer, Southeast District Community Corrections
Unit D Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Food Service Manager, Frederick Community Work Center, Southwest District
Correctional Counselor, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Assistant to the Warden, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Activities Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Mental Health Unit, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Construction & Maintenance Administrator, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Assistant District Supervisor, Southeast District Community Corrections
Corporal, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Health Services Administrator, Lawton Correctional Center
SAT Program Director, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Probation Officer, McAlester Probation & Parole
Probation Officer, McAlester Probation & Parole
Property Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Chief Financial Officer, Department of Corrections
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Records Officer, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Sergeant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Safety Consultant, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Director, Department of Human Services
Sergeant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Chair, Board of Corrections
Probation & Parole Officer, Enid Probation & Parole
Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Senior Correctional Case Manager, Enid Oklahoma Community Correctional Center
Nurse Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Deputy Director, Community Corrections, Department of Corrections
Administrative Assistant for Records, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Program Director, SOTP, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Accountant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Assistant Deputy Director, Community Corrections, Department of Corrections
Fire Safety Consultant, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center

Case Manager, MSU, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Construction Maintenance Administrator, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Unit B Case Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Information Systems Network Management Specialist , James Crabtree Correctional Center
Case Manager, MSU, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Security Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
C-Unit Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Records Clerk, James Crabtree Correctional Center

Page D-5

Interviews

Hudson, Brian
Hudson, Chris
Humphrey, Justin
Hunt, Jerry
Hutchison, Tony
Irvin, Nancy
Jackson, Angela
Jackson, Linda
James, Tom
Janet Bolton
Janis, Dwayne
Jantz, Terry
Jarrett, Bob
Jefferson, Linda
Jenkins, Dennis
Jenks, Terry
Jimison, Dean
Johnson, Dedric
Johnson, Dennis
Johnson, Margaret
Johnson, Rita
Johnson, Sen.
Constance
Johnson, Sen. Mike
Johnston, Carla
Jones, Brandon
Jones, Diana
Jones, Hank
Jones, Ilona
Jones, Justin
Jones, Lt. Sam
Jones, Ramon
Jones-Cooper, Ruby
Jordan, Lenora
Judd, Ron
Karcher, Freddie
Keith, Jim
Keith, Shentel
Keithley, James
Kemp, Vernell
Kendall, Kerry
Kettle, Bill
Kill, L.H.
King, Carla
King, Robert
Kirkpatrick, Paul
Klingler, Ken
Koler, Dianna
Kornele, Rick
Ladd, Dick
Lahr, Troy
Laird, Barney
Lakin, Tim
Lamb, Sen. Todd

Drug Court Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Assistant District Supervisor, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
2nd Vice President, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 147
Safety Officer, Davis Correctional Facility
Director, Office of State Finance
Case Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Food Service Manager, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Unit Manager of the Faith Based Program, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Assistant Chief Financial Officer, Department of Corrections
Business Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Altus Probation & Parole
Team Supervisor, Enid Probation & Parole
Principal, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Human Resource Administrator, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Correctional Sergeant, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Executive Director, Pardon and Parole Board
Sergeant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Classification Coordinator, Davis Correctional Facility
Chief of Security, Davis Correctional Facility
Assistant District Supervisor, Earl A. Davis Community Work Center
Chief Records Officer, Lawton Community Corrections Center
State Senator
State Senator
Human Resources Manager, Davis Correctional Facility
Correctional Sergeant, Security Threat Groups, Lawton Correctional Center
Manager of Operations & Finance, Davis Correctional Facility
Safety Consultant, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Teacher, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Director, Department of Corrections
Acting Chief of Security, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Lieutenant, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
District Supervisor, Oklahoma County Residential Services, Department of Corrections
Administrator, Training and Staff Development
Training Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Lifeline Program Director, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Warden, Davis Correctional Facility
Probation Officer, McAlester Probation & Parole
Mental Health Services, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Recreation Supervisor, Davis Correctional Facility
Unit D Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Sergeant, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Correctional Case Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Deputy Warden-Administration, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Case Manager, Unit D, Davis Correctional Facility
Assistant to Associate Director Evans, Department of Corrections
Chief of Operational Services, Department of Corrections
Procedures, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Aftercare Case Manager, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Farm Manager, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Aftercare Case Manager, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Construction Maintenance Administrator, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Construction Maintenance Administrator, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
State Senator
Page D-6

Interviews

Lancaster, Rick
Lance, Mike
Landers, Rita
Lane, Jimmy
Langston, Phil
Larssen, Glenn
Laughlin, Sen. Owen
Law, Roben
Lawmaster, Becky
Lee, Glenda
Lee, Josh
Leeper, Janet
Leistner, Mark
Lerblance, Sen.
Richard
Letourneau, Don
Letourneau, Joyce
Levick, Roger
Lewis, Cynthia
Little, Ernie
Logan, Michael
Logan, Ted
Long, Corporal Blake
Loscalzo, Patrick
Lott, Chip
Louis Delaney
Lovias, Stacy
Lucas, Ken
Lucero, Melissa
Lyon, Stephanie
Lysinger, Sgt. Mark
Maddocks, Alicia
Maddox, Mitzi
Mahaffey, Debbie
Malone, Debbie
Marker, Robert
Martin, Donnie
Martin, Jimmy
Martin, Patti
Martin, Terry
Martin, Toni
Martinez, Lynne
Mason, Chester
Masqueiler, John
Massey, Cathy
Massie, Neville
Mathis, Byron
Matthews, Travis
Mayfield, Anji
McAlpin, Jeff
McCellan, Desiree

Correctional Sergeant, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Sergeant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Business Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Correctional Activities Officer, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Corrections Health Services Administrator, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Vice–President, Bridgeway Halfway House
State Senator
Dental Assistant, Lawton Community Correctional Center
Local Administrator, Community Sentencing Division, Tulsa County
Correctional Health Services Administrator, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Captain, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Information Systems Applications Specialist, Department of Corrections
Chief of Security, Altus Community Work Center
State Senator
Food Service Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Food Service Manager, Enid Oklahoma Community Correctional Center
Sheriff, Jackson County
Correctional Counselor, B-unit, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Psychologist, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Assistant District Supervisor, Southwest District of Community Corrections
Secretary, Board of Corrections
Correctional Security Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Mental Health Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma
County
Correctional Industries Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Human Resources Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Correctional Case Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Career-Tech Automobile Technology, Lawton Community Corrections Center
Secretary, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Material Management Specialist, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Davis Correctional Facility
Drug Court Caseload Officer, Southwest District Community Corrections
Case Manager Supervisor, Enid Oklahoma Community Correctional Center
Deputy Director, Department of Corrections
Population Coordinator, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Officer, Enid Oklahoma Community Correctional Center
COMIT Database Administrator, Department of Corrections
Assistant Warden, Davis Correctional Facility
Unit G Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Deputy Warden, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Contract Monitor (PPJS), Lawton Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Correctional Health Services Administrator, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Probation & Parole Officer, Enid Probation & Parole
Records Office, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Executive Assistant to the Director, Department of Corrections
Construction Maintenance Technician, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Lieutenant, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
COMIT Project Manager, Department of Corrections
Northwestern Contractor, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Corporal, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center

Page D-7

Interviews

McClain Atwood,
Suzanne
McCollum, Kathryn
McCollum, Tracy
McCoy, Genese
McCoy, Pat
McCoy, Sharon
McDoulet, Steve
McDoulett, Teresa
McElhatten, Mary Lou
McFarland, Mike
McGee, Gary
McGee, Nancy
McGomery, Donald
McGuire, David
McLin, Bart
McLuckie, Thomas
McMaster, Eric
McMaster, Linda
McMillin, John
McNair, Ken
Meacham, Scott
Meek, Jim
Meget, Craig
Melton, Janice
Merchant, Rex
Merrell, Jerry
Murry, Mike
Miller, Cristie
Miller, David
Miller, Kathy
Mills, Debbie
Minietta, Michele
Miser, Lesia
Moham, Rickey
Montalvo, Carol
Moon, K.C.
Mooney, Mike
Mooring, Jack
Morgan, Fred
Morgan, Linda
Morgan, Sharon
Morphis, Terry
Morrison, Tommy
Mullin, Mike
Murray, Juanita
Murry, Mike
Myers, Damon
Neely, Tereasa
Nesbitt, Steve
Neumann, Sharon

Executive Coordinator, Oklahoma District Attorneys Council
Chaplain, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Health Services Administrator, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Instructor, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Unit A Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Team Supervisor, Southeast District Community Corrections
Unit Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Deputy Warden, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Records Officer, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Safety Consultant, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Warden’s Assistant, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Carver Center Supervisor, Avalon Corrections
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Admissions & Reception Coordinator, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Administrator, Internal Audit, Department of Corrections
Director, Diversion Services, Tulsa
Assistant Director, Diversion Services, Tulsa
Business Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Executive Director, Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association
State Treasurer
Career Tech Skills Center, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center and Jess Dunn
Correctional Center
Sex Offender Caseload Officer, Southwest District Community Corrections
Warden, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Canteen Supervisor, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Information Technology, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Deputy Warden, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Human Resources Management Specialist, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Warden, Lawton Correctional Facility
Health Services Administrator, Davis Correctional Facility
Warden’s Secretary, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Assistant General Counsel, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Coordinator, Facility Classification, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Deputy Warden, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Correctional Health Services Administrator, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
Executive Director, Criminal Justice Resource Center
Maintenance Supervisor, Davis Correctional Facility
Food Services Manager, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Senior Policy Advisor and Legal Counsel, Sen. Coffee, Co-President Pro-Tempore
Deputy Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Case Manager , Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Construction Maintenance Technician, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Institutional Training Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Warden, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Classification Secretary, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Deputy Warden-Operations, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Ponca City Probation & Parole
Operation Clerk, Lawton Correctional Center
Property Officer, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Deputy Director, Community Sentencing and Offender Information Services, Department
of Corrections

Page D-8

Interviews

Newton-Embry,
Millicent
Nichols, Sen. Jonathan
Noyola, Rachel
Oakley, Michael
Onajobi, Ola
Osborne, O.J.
Overstreet, J'me
Paige, William
Paris, Greg
Parish, Richard
Parish, Simon
Parker, Alice
Parker, David
Parker, Ron
Parrish, Linda
Patterson, Dewey
Patterson, Mike
Peck, Kent
Peoples, Arnold
Perry, Bernard
Perry, Jerry
Perteet, Don
Peters, Ronald
Phillips, Barbara
Phillips, Charles
Phillips, Kristie
Phillips, Richard
Pink, Crysta
Pitman, Laura
Porter, Vera
Posvie, Tim
Powell, Ada
Powell, David
Powell, Matthew
Prater, David
Press, Abe
Preston, Sam
Prignore, Kenneth
Pruitt, Lisa
Purvis, Cheryl
Rabon, Jim
Rainey, Robert L.
Ramirez, Shawn
Range, Craig
Ravitz, Robert "Bob"
Reagan, Angela
Rector, Chris
Redman, Rodney
Reed, James
Reese, Leda
Remer, James

Warden, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
State Senator
Probation & Parole Officer, Frederick Probation & Parole
General Counsel, Department of Corrections
Unit Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Correctional Sergeant, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Associate Director, Administrative Services, Department of Corrections
Correctional Records Officer, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Correctional Teacher, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Tulsa County District
Correctional Sergeant, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Operating Systems Specialist, Information Technology, Department of Corrections
Warden, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Correctional Officer, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Administrator, Personnel, Department of Corrections
Case Manager, Lawton Community Corrections Center
Training Officer, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Unit Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Sheriff, Texas County
Maintenance Administrator, Lawton Community Corrections Center
Acting Unit B Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chaplain, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Lawton Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Stillwater Probation & Parole
Correctional Sergeant, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Assistant District Supervisor, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Director of Government Relations, Sooner Strategies
Unit Manager, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Clinical Coordinator, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Enid Probation & Parole
Unit Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Psychologist, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Unit A Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Probation and Parole Officer, Lawton Probation and Parole Office
District Attorney, Oklahoma County
Chief of Security, Enid Community Corrections Center
Unit J Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Correctional Sergeant, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Procedures Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Attorney, State Senate
Administrator, Sentence Administration, Department of Corrections
Member, Board of Corrections
Farm Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Correctional Teacher, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Public Defender, Oklahoma County
Deputy Warden, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Lieutenant, Central Transportation Unit, Department of Corrections
Deputy Warden, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Team Supervisor, Southwest District Community Corrections
Secretary to the Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Chaplain, Jess Dunn Correctional Center

Page D-9

Interviews

Richards, Jim
Richardson, Rose
Roberts, Anisa
Robinson, Darlene
Robinson, Sgt. Travis
Roe, Kay
Rogers, David
Rogers, Paul
Romary, Tom
Rose, Julie
Roten, Anita
Royal, Melissa
Ruhl, Bill
Saffle, James
Sakmari, Nail
Salinas, Suzie
Sampson, Chad
Samuels, Gretchen
Sanders, Tamara
Sanford, Randy
Sasnett, Cathy
Schnee, Dr. Ronald
Schulte, Robert
Scott, Glen
Scott, Wade
Seiter, Richard P.
Sellers, Jefferson D.
Semeski, Alan
Sewell, Mark
Sexton, Margaret
Shea, Everett
Sheik, Greg
Shields, Veryl
Shpeyin, Shola
Silva, Pete
Simmons, Judy
Simpson, Wally
Sipes, Cathy
Sirmons, Marty
Skinner, George
Smith, Denise
Smith, Donald E.
Smith, Sally Howe
Smith, Wayne
Somer, John
Spears, Scott
Stacy, Valery
Standifird, Jane
Steidly, J. Dwayne
Stein, Marie
Stell, Sid
Stevens, Bob

Lieutenant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Sergeant, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Administrative Assistant, Agri-Services, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Senior Correctional Case Manager, Enid Community Corrections Center
STG Officer, Davis Correctional Facility
Inmate Trust Fund Officer, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Director of Operations, Bridgeway Halfway House
Chief of Security, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Senior House Manager, Bridgeway Halfway House
Contract Monitor (PPJS), Lawton Correctional Center
Secretary to the Deputy Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Deputy Warden’s Secretary, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Counselor, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center
President, Avalon Correctional Services
Correctional Security Officer–Key Control, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Unit Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
GPS Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Central District Community Services Intake Unit, Oklahoma County
Corrections Records Officer, Community Corrections, Northwest District
Registered Nurse, Davis Correctional Facility
Business Manager, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Programs Director, Lawton Correctional Center
District Attorney, Comanche County
Chief Executive Officer, Alpha II Halfway House
Chaplain, Davis Correctional Facility
Executive Vice President & Chief Corrections Officer, Corrections Corporation of America
District Judge, 14th Judicial District
Corrections and Maintenance Technician, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Chaplain, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Procedures Officer, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Sergeant, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit Manager, Charles E. “Bill” Johnson Correctional Center
Unit 3 Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Chief Public Defender, Tulsa County
Executive Assistant, Office of Internal Affairs, Department of Corrections
Construction Maintenance Technician, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Corrections Officer, Armory, Davis Correctional Facility
Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
County Commissioner, Cleveland County
Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Avalon Correctional Services
Community Sentencing Planning Council, Tulsa County
District Supervisor, Southwest District of Community Corrections
Unit E Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Probation Officer, Community Corrections, Southeast District
Nurse, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Deputy Warden, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
District Judge, 12th Judicial District
Secretary, B-Unit, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Captain, Cleveland County Sheriff's Office
Meat Processing Center Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center

Page D-10

Interviews

Stradley, Kenneth
Street, Dottie
Sullivan, Brenda
Tandy, Ann
Tarver, Reggie
Tavanello, Rod
Taylor, Bill
Taylor, James
Taylor, Paul
Teetshorn, Marilyn
Thomas, Jennifer
Thomas, Martinca
Thomason, Butch
Thornburg, Brian
Thornton, Al
Tillman, Anthony
Timms, Kristin
Tipton, Shelly
Tomlin, Harold
Tomlinson, Bob
Toyer, Ann
Tucker, Willie
Tuggle, Terry
Turner, Johnny
Turner, Larry
Tygret, Mark
Tyler, Ebony
Underwood, Terry
Upchurch, Dierdre
Van Orden, Owen
Vardell, Steve
Vaughan, Jeff
Vaughn, Esther
Vaughn, Marvin
Vinsant, Dr. Terry
Von Hagel, Patricia
Vose, George
Vu, Daniel
Wabaunsee, Deadra
Wade, Mike
Wallace, Sean
Walls, Tom
Ward, Kevin
Ward, Ronnie
Ware, Earnest D.
Warmington, Chad
Warrior, Maurice
Watkins, Renee
Watson, Mabel
Watson, Robert
Wattles, Mark

Sheriff, Comanche County
Oklahoma Correctional Industries Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Business Manager, Lawton Correctional Center
Residential Contract Administrator, Division of Community Corrections
Carver Center Assistant Supervisor, Avalon Corrections
Board President, Bridgeway Halfway House
Correctional Teacher, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Maintenance Supervisor, Lawton Correctional Center
Teacher, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Business Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Correctional Officer, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Sergeant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Correctional Case Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Assistant District Supervisor-Probation and Parole, Southwest District
Recreation Supervisor, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Senior Case Manager, Bridgeway Halfway House
Classification and Population, Department of Corrections
Diversion Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Principal, Eddie Warrior and Jess Dunn Correctional Centers
Industrial Coordinator, Oklahoma Correctional Industries
Field Service Coordinator and GPS Coordinator, Department of Corrections
Instructional Leader, Career Tech, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit D Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Correctional Officer, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Food Service, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Deputy Fiscal Director, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Female Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Records Supervisor, Davis Correctional Facility
Diversion Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Lieutenant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Career Tech, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Correctional Industry Manager, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Correctional Activities Officer, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Deputy Warden, Administration, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Psychologist, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Probation & Parole Officer, Enid Probation & Parole
Sr. Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, CiviGenics
Network Planning Development Manager, Department of Corrections
Nursing Manager, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Business Manager, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Fiscal Analyst, State Senate
Chief of Staff, Oklahoma State Senate
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety
Vice-President, Avalon Correctional Services
Vice Chair, Board of Corrections
Chief of Staff, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Unit B Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Administrator, Private Prisons, Jails & Safety, Department of Corrections
Material Management Supervisor, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Chief of Security, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Correctional Record Office Supervisor, John H. Lilley Correctional Center

Page D-11

Interviews

Watts, Emma
Webber, John
Wedel, Terry
Welcher, Dobie
Weldon, Janet
West, Kelly
Whetsel, John
White, Karen
White, Stephanie
White, Terri
Whiteneck, Don
Whitten, Rick
Wiafe, Melinda
Wilkett, Cindy
Wilkins, Rev. Tim
Williams, Frank
Williams, George
Williams, Greg
Williams, Ken
Williamson, Benito
Wilson, Barbara
Wilson, Elois
Wilson, Jim
Wilson, Leon
Wintz, Barbara
Wiseman, Jon
Wiser, Ron
Wolgamott, Brad
Wood, J.C.
Wooden, Jacqueline
Woody, Jeff
Wooten, Steve
Workman, Bob
Workman, Randall
Wortham, David
Wright, David
Wright, Samantha
Wyatt, Jan
Young, Sid
Zarrella, Mike
Ziriax, Paul

Warden, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Construction/Maintenance Administrator, Enid Community Corrections Center
Unit A Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Information Services Network Manager Specialist, John H. Lilley Correctional Center
Human Resources Management Specialist, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Case Manager , Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Sheriff, Oklahoma County
Central District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Classification Case Manager Supervisor, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Commissioner, Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services
Institutional Farm Manager, James Crabtree Correctional Center
Deputy Warden, Operations, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Case Manager, Diversion Services, Tulsa
Business Manager, Community Corrections, Department of Corrections
Faith and Character Program Coordinator
Physician Assistant, Lawton Community Corrections Center
Unit C Manager, Joseph Harp Correctional Center
Assistant Deputy Director, Field Operations, Department of Corrections
Unit Manager, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
Caseload Officer, Central District Community Corrections, Oklahoma County
Unit Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Chief of Security, Frederick Community Work Center
Shift Lieutenant, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Business Manager, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Probation/Parole Officer, Southeast District Community Corrections
Maintenance-Electrical, Davis Correctional Facility
Comptroller, Offender Services, Department of Corrections
Research Analyst, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Probation & Parole Officer, Stillwater Probation & Parole
Lieutenant, Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Team Supervisor, Altus Probation & Parole
COMIT Application Specialist, Department of Corrections
Principal, Davis Correctional Facility
Warden, Lexington Assessment & Reception Center
Unit A Manager, Oklahoma State Reformatory
Decision Support Manager, Justice Systems, Department of Mental Health & Substance
Abuse Services
Corrections Officer, Armory, Davis Correctional Facility
Case Manager, Jess Dunn Correctional Center
Maintenance Supervisor, Jackie Brannon Correctional Center
Assistant District Supervisor, Community Corrections, Northwest District
Republican Leadership Assistant, Oklahoma State Senate

Page D-12