Corrections Audit Confirms OPEA’s Position
After six months of intensive scrutiny and the expenditure of $844, 000, the performance audit of the Department of Corrections was completed in January. Many of the recommendations have been advocated by OPEA over the past 10 years. The audit conducted by MGT, is 295 pages long and contains 141 recommendations.
The audit begins by commending the professionalism of the staff, who, in spite of understaffing and a poor work environment, continue to serve. “We were impressed by the professionalism, enthusiasm, and commitment to excellence by staff at all levels of the department.” (Page 2 of the introductory letter)
The audit is critical of the way state leaders have funded the agency through supplemental appropriations. This practice has depressed staffing levels, leaving state employees with the consequences of bad fiscal management.
The document also decries the condition of the corrections infrastructure, echoing a concern that OPEA has repeatedly stated in reports and meetings with legislators. Many of the facilities were built in the early 1900’s and were never meant to be prisons. Roofs have been leaking for years and plumbing and electrical systems are obsolete and overloaded. The automatic door locking system, which is essential for a medium-security prison, has been disabled because of frequent malfunctions.
OPEA is in disagreement with the proposed solution to the decaying facilities and need for new beds. The auditors recommend the expansion into private prisons because the state takes so long to build new facilities. While the agency is in a bind for additional beds, because of the legislature’s inaction, the move into more private beds is an expensive quick-fix.
“OPEA believes the answer to the building needs is a design/build/lease/purchase option, which provides for state operation of a privately-built facility,” said OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley. “This has been the Association’s position since the Keating years.”
The auditors make specific recommendations for additional staff at several posts in Oklahoma State Penitentiary. In addition, they recommend that each facility be assessed individually for emergency staffing needs, instead of applying the 82 percent ratio to all facilities regardless of security level or mission. The audit also recommends that each facility be provided adequate staff for cell searches and shakedowns.
In recruitment and retention, the document indicates that the hiring process should be streamlined and the policy of rotating work schedules should be revisited. Lowering the age of correctional officers to 19 is also recommended. Legislators have introduced bills to change the age by one year to 20.
Another part of the audit that affects OPEA members is the modification of 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. The auditors question whether the jobs of probation and parole officers require complete CLEET certification. Almost 100 hours of the CLEET training is dedicated to radar, field sobriety, and crime scene investigation, which are not necessary for the PPO job.
“Officers often supplement their low state employee pay with weekend jobs as peace officers,” said Zearley. “The Association believes that CLEET should be the basic training for these positions.”
Several bills have been introduced to implement parts of the audit. OPEA will be working with DOC as session continues to be certain employee’s concerns are heard.
“The most important parts of the audit reaffirm OPEA’s long-held position that DOC needs additional staff and beds to meet its mission,” concluded Zearley. “Unfortunately, all state agencies face similar problems. We look forward to performance audits on other state agencies, which will undoubtedly tell the same story.”
The list of recommendations is located in Appendix A at the end of the report, which can be found on the Department of Corrections website. (http://www.okhouse.gov/Documents/OKRVSDFinalReport080103.pdf) For the purpose of providing information to members in a short, readable format, this summary will focus on Private Prisons, Infrastructure, Staffing, and Policies and Procedures. The number at the end of the recommendation is number of the recommendation in the audit document.
Private Prisons
DOC should enter into formal negotiations with CCA for additional maximum-security beds that will come available July 2008. (3-16)
DOC should develop a competitive RFP for the private development and long-term operation of a correctional facility. (3-17)
According to the audit, Oklahoma has 23.8 percent of its beds in private prisons, as compared to 26 percent in 2002. The drop can be attributed to the termination of contracts with Cornell and the CCA Diamondback facility. This makes Oklahoma second only to New Mexico in the percentage of contract beds. Four states in the region do not use private prisons.
The audit recommends expanding private prison beds to meet the immediate needs of the system. While many of the buildings are beyond repair and new buildings are desperately needed, more private prison beds are not the best option. According to the audit, the agency would save money by the state operating the new 660-bed private unit, but the immediate need for beds makes private operation a better option.
Past experience tells us that expanding into private prisons is not the solution. Oklahoma was forced to reduce its percentage of private prison beds because of the capricious actions of private prison corporations who determined they could get a better deal from other states.
In addition, private prison corporations do not hold to the deals negotiated by the Department of Corrections in their contracts. Vendors lobby for per diem increases that are not provided to state operated facilities causing their costs to climb much faster than state operated prisons.
Private prisons are a business driven by market forces. The increasing demand for bed space causes the vendors to increase their prices. If the agency does not respond with higher per diem rates, the private prison firms abandon the state for richer contracts. This happened recently in the Cornell contract, when the vendor told DOC to move 800 inmates to accommodate another state.
While additional beds are needed immediately, contracting for the 660-bed maximum security unit at Davis is not the solution. While the Davis facility turnover is the lowest of the Oklahoma’s private prison contractor, housing Oklahoma’s challenging maximum security inmates in a facility with 40 percent turnover could endanger the public, staff, and inmates. This population requires experienced security and support staff.
According to the audit, the state has no other alternative but to utilize more private beds, because it would take three years to plan, finance and build a new prison using the traditional method of constructing state facilities. The system needs new beds immediately. However, the state can negotiate new facilities through design/build/lease/purchase contracts and have a state-operated prison much quicker than traditional prison construction. This process has been utilized in other states and OPEA has been advocating for this method of prison construction for over ten years.
Divide future private prison contracts into separate agreements for building leases and facility operation, provided that such arrangements are financially advantageous.
(3-21)
Currently, the private prison owns and operates much of Oklahoma’s medium security prison infrastructure. If lease and operation contracts are separated, the state has more control over the contractors.
Contractor should not allow vendors to terminate contracts for convenience. (3-28)
According to the audit, private prison vendors should not be allowed to terminate contracts for convenience. The common practice in the industry requires vendors to show cause before terminating a contract. Cornell recently exercised this clause in the termination of a contract, so they could replace Oklahoma inmates with those from another state with a higher per diem rate.
Continue to refine standardized criteria for monitoring private prisons. (3-23)
Contracts should include language authorizing department review and inspection of contractor operations at any time. (3-27)
The audit makes recommendations to standardize and strengthen private prison contract monitoring. According to the audit, most states require agency access to the facility to inspect operations at any time. However, Oklahoma contracts require a 24-hour notice.
Infrastructure
The Department of Corrections operates several facilities that were never intended to be prisons, but are discarded institutions from other state agencies. The design and structure of these buildings are obsolete, some dating back to the early part of the last century.
The design and structure of these buildings are obsolete, some dating back to the early part of the last century.
The auditors found “serious deterioration of DOC facilities”. While including a caveat that they were not engineers or architects, indicated as corrections professionals they viewed “the situation at some facilities places the health and safety of inmates and staff at risk”.
DOC develops an annual list of critical capital improvements, with 200 items totaling $490 million on the 2007 list. The list includes such items as roofing repairs, security upgrades, or new housing units. Listed below are highlights.
Joseph Harp: The facility has 19 projects on the capital improvement list, totaling $6.4 million. Roof repairs for Harp have been on the list for ten years. In addition, the boilers and waste water treatment plants are not adequate to support the current population.
Jess Dunn: The facility does not have adequate generator capacity and one is very old. Exterior lights, including the perimeter fence, and the kitchen have no emergency power. In addition, the facility’s electrical system is antiquated (still uses screw-in fuses) and does not support the load demand.
Eddie Warrior: The institution is “seriously deficient in emergency electrical generating power.
Lexington Assessment & Reception Center: LARC’s list adds up to $11.4 million and includes roof repair/replacement, refrigeration repair, and perimeter lighting.
Jackie Brannon: The roof replacement has been requested for eight years and part of the electrical system is 70 years old.
Oklahoma State Reformatory and Oklahoma State Penitentiary: Both facilities have old buildings which the staff and inmates have struggled to maintain. However, the age and condition of the buildings and the staff required detract from the facilities’ effectiveness. Both facilities use non-traditional, converted space for housing. Roof repairs, renovations for the Americans Disability Act, and other critical capital needs add up to over $4 million.
James Crabtree: The prison is designated as medium security; however, its infrastructure is more consistent with minimum security. The door locking mechanism is not functional. Almost a third of the inmates are in buildings over 70 years old. Half of the buildings need roof repairs. The kitchen is in excess of 80 years old and the design creates health and safety challenges. Blind spots in the facility are a security concern.
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. (3-15)
DOC should develop a long-term capacity plan that incorporates the results of the master plan and, if feasible, additional private prison facilities. (3-18)
Over the past ten years, OPEA has voiced concern with the working conditions for correctional employees in obsolete facilities that were never intended to house inmates. While DOC should have a long-term plan to replace these facilities, the immediate danger to the health and safety of employees and inmates must be addressed. The state should begin to address the issues outlined in the audit and construct a new facility utilizing the design/build/lease/purchase method of construction.
The department needs to add capacity for high-security inmates. (4-3)
DOC should consider creating a separate maximum-security general population facility to meet its space needs. (6-10)
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. (4-2)
The number of maximum security beds has decreased by 56 percent in 34 years, from 2,200 in 1973 to the current 1,237. DOC falls short of the recommendation that 10 percent of the male population should be in a high-security single-cell unit. According to the audit, DOC should consider additional maximum-security beds as a high priority.
DOC should move medium-security inmates from any setting that does not have operational locking systems in its living areas. (6-30)
DOC should ensure that every correctional institution dedicates a minimum of four percent of its available bed space to segregated housing. (6-31)
DOC should increase its number of infirmary beds to improve hospital utilization and care management for severely disabled inmates. (6-41)
DOC should develop a strategic plan to upgrade its radio systems. (6-16)
In addition, the audit confirms another long-term OPEA concern: the need for functioning radios to communicate facilities. Short battery life, poor reception and limited range are common concerns. Some staff bring their own radios to work to help ensure their personal safety.
Staffing
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 (5-30)
The auditors question whether the jobs of probation and parole officers require complete CLEET certification. Almost 100 hours of the CLEET training is dedicated to radar, field sobriety, and crime scene investigation, which are not necessary for the PPO job. The CLEET certification and other DOC required training takes 40 percent of a PPO’s first year on the job. The auditors recommend that a special training program be designed for PPOs that more accurately fit their jobs.
The DOC should lower the minimum age for correctional officer employment to 19.
(6-4)
DOC should ensure consistent staffing of the following additional posts at OSP: Housing Unit A Officer, Housing Unity C Officer, Compound/Movement Control, Gang Intelligence Officer. (6-1)
DOC should reconsider its present policy of funding all facilities equally at 82 percent of the authorized staffing level. (6-2)
The population, facility and security level should be included in consideration of staffing levels.
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. (6-24)
DOC should calculate the relief factor for each facility annually. (6-7)
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. (6-9)
DOC should evaluate its hiring process to find ways to expedite it, so that job applicants are not lost to lengthy delays. (6-6)
Policies
The audit identifies policies and procedures that the Department of Corrections and the criminal justice system should pursue to ensure the best use of the taxpayers’ public safety dollar.
DOC should conduct research to identify the type of offender and offense most appropriate for community sentencing or drug courts. (5-4)
Prison sentences for those who fail the program should more closely mirror sentences given to other persons with similar criminal histories. (5-3)
All drug court participants should have at least one prior felony. (5-7)
Oklahoma has increased the use of drug courts extensively over the past ten years, but our incarceration rate continues to be one of the highest in the nation. The audit questions whether the criminal justice system is identifying the proper population for the more expensive drug court model, as opposed to simple probation. While the drug court model is effective for first time offenders, if the goal is to divert offenders from prison, the program should be reserved for prison bound offenders with more than one felony offense. Also, mid-level sanctions should be used before sentencing those who fail drug courts to prison. When offenders are sentenced to prison from drug court, they should receive similar sentences to those who were not involved in the program. Frustration with their lack of compliance should not lead to long sentences that the tax payers must fund.
The legislature should initiate action to remove statutory and constitutional provisions to review and approve all paroles. (5-16)
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. (5-17)
The governor and the board should comply with all statutory time limits for review and consideration of recommendations for parole. (5-18)
Oklahoma is the last state to require the governor’s signature on all paroles. Currently, the Pardon and Parole Board completes the investigations, conducts hearings and recommends paroles to the governor. Unfortunately, governors are reluctant to sign paroles because a re-offense can be used against them in the political process. Signing every parole overburdens the governor’s office. A full-time professional board should be responsible for this important process. OPEA members at the Pardon and Parole Board have included removing the governor from the parole process in the Association’s 2008 Platform.
For more information contact Trish Frazier, MPA, CAE
Policy and Research Director
Oklahoma Public Employees Association
trishf@opea.org