2007 Innovations Awards Program APPLICATION

CSG reserves the right to use or publish in other CSG products and services the information provided in this Innovations Awards Program Application. If your agency objects to this policy, please advise us in a separate attachment to your program’s application.

Please provide the following information, adding space as necessary:

State: Oklahoma

Assign Program Category (aDDlicant): (Use list at end of application) Public SafetyICorrections

1. Program Name: Oklahoma Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System

2. Administering Agency: Oklahoma Department of Corrections

3. Contact Person (Name and Title): Debbie Boyer, SPHR, Administrator, Quality Assurance and Operational Services

4. Address: 2901 Classen, Suite 200, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 731 06

5. Telephone Number: 405-962-6083

6. FAXNumber: 405-962-61 02

7. E-mail Address: debbie. bover@doc.state.ok.us

8. Web site Address: www.doc.state.ok.us

9. Please provide a two-sentence description of the program. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System provides a system for the continuous review and evaluation of all areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department in an effort to ensure: (1) better allocation of resources; (2) more efficient and effective operations based on continuous improvement; and (3) creation and delivery of quality (best practice) results-driven programs and services t o better fulf i l l the department's vision and mission. The Quality Assurance System includes three components: (1) An Organizational Review Process which utilizes panels composed of internal and external subject matter experts to conduct comprehensive examinations of areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department; (2) Quality Councils responsible for chartering process action teams to address problems, issues, or work processes; and (3) delivery of training in quality awareness, teams, tools, and techniques.

10.How long has this program been operational (month and year)? Note: the program must be between 9 months and 5 years old on April 2, 2007, to be considered. January2006

11. Why was the program created? What problem[s] or issue[s] was it designed to address? The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is the second largest state agency with responsibility for nearly 4,700 full-time employees; an offender population of 56,164; and a Fiscal Year 2006 budget of over $456 million. In a proactive approach to address constituent concerns related to department operations and in an effort to meet i t s obligation for efficient and effective operations to the taxpayers of the state of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections established a Quality Assurance System in January, 2006.

12. Describe the specific activities and operations of the program in chronological order.

The Quality Assurance Unit became operational on January 17, 2006. The unit was initially staffed with two full-time employees. In August 2006, the unit was restructured to include oversight of finance and business operations for Divisional Administration, Programs, Medical Services, and Mental Health Services as well as personnel functions for Divisional Administration and Programs.

A Corrections Quality Assurance Business Plan, which provided the basic framework for the Organizational Review component of the system, was developed and submitted February 2, 2006. The plan included an appendix listing of the agency's core functions.

A Board of Corrections Policy Statement P-010600 was developed and approved by the Board on February 24, 2006. The policy became effective March 1, 2006. An operations memorandum has also been developed and is pending review.

An Organizational Review Process Map was developed to guide Organizational Review Panels through the process. The process includes several communication "checkpoints" with the site representative for the area under review and other key decision makers throughout the process.

0 A web site (http://www.doc.state.ok.us/treatment/quality/index.html) was developed and includes a Communications section where progress reports and communication bulletins are posted.

0 A Quality Assurance E-Mail "Hotline" was established (improvementatwork@ doc.state.ok.us). This "hotline" provides an additional avenue for employees of the area under review to submit confidential feedback and suggestions for improvement directly to the Quality Assurance office.

A request for a technical assistance grant was submitted, and a grant was awarded by the National Institute of Corrections. The grant provided for a consultant to travel to Oklahoma to provide training on Quality Awareness, Teams, Tools, and Techniques.

-- A two-day session was provided by National Institute of Corrections Correctional Programs Specialist, Dr. John Eggers, to Department of Corrections upper managers on March 27-28, 2006.

-- On June 6-8, 2006, a training team composed of Dr. Eggers and Quality Assurance staff presented a three-day Quality Awareness, Teams, Tools, and Techniques Training for Trainers session to 21 employees from across the agency. This training was particularly challenging in that it required participants to serve as instructors and "teach back" the various segments of the training to the entire class. These staff members will be responsible for providing "just in time" training to process action teams chartered by agency leadership to work on addressing problems with agency-wide or work location specific impact. -- On July 11-12, 2006, a two-day Facilitation Skills training session was provided for 18 employees. This training focused specifically on those skills needed to successfully facilitate process action teams as they work on problem solving or quality improvement processes.

A communications plan was developed and reviewed by the agency's executive communications manager. The plan was approved with one recommendation-- creation of an informational brochure (currently under development).

Communication efforts included:

-- Executive staff were advised of the sites under review and the information gathering process requirements via correspondence dated February 6, 2006;

-- A PowerPoint presentation was provided at the February 15, 2006, upper management session;

-- A PowerPoint presentation was provided to the Board of Corrections on March 24, 2006; -- A letter dated March 31, 2006, from Board of Corrections Chairman Robert L. Rainey to Governor Brad Henry provided information about the agency’s Organizational Review Process as well as parallel efforts involving training and chartering of process action teams; -- PowerPoint presentations were provided to Division of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services staff at their division-wide staff meetings held on May 5, 2006; December 5,2006; and March 6,2007;

-- A PowerPoint presentation was provided by the Volunteer Services Organizational Review Panel and Site Representative to upper management on June 20, 2006;

-- Newsletter articles were published in the MarchiApril and May 2006 issues of Inside Corrections; -- Quality Assurance Communications Bulletins were issued on January 24, February 15, March I O , March 31, May 24, June 12, June 20, July 17, August 21, October 11, and November 28, 2006. Bulletins were also issued on March 6 and March 26, 2007. -- Quality Assurance staff met with institutional maintenance staff on February 7, 2007, and community corrections maintenance staff on February 21, 2007, to provide an overview of the Organizational Review process and respond to questions related to the review of maintenance operations statewide;

-- Quality Assurance staff met with Programs staff on February 12, 2007, and Education staff on February 13, 2007, to provide an overview of the process and respond to questions related to the review of Programs (including Education) operations statewide;

-- On March 14, 2007, an overview of the Quality Assurance System was provided to chiefs of security statewide.

* Four Organizational Reviews were completed and reports published:

-- The Organizational Review of the Employee Assistance Program was completed in May 2006. Panel members included: Robert Dennis, EAP Coordinator, Oklahoma State Department of Health; Robert Stevens, EAP Coordinator, Office of Personnel Management; and Debbie Boyer, Quality Assurance Administrator, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

This review resulted in estimated savings of approximately $50,000.

-- The Organizational Review of Volunteer SeM’ces was completed in May 2006. Panel members included: Deborah Price, Projects Manager, Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives; Major Connie Morris, Salvation Army--Arkansas/Oklahoma Division; Karen Jacobs, Coordinator, Office of Volunteerism, Department of Human Services; and Debbie Boyer, Quality Assurance Administrator, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

-- The Organizational Review of the Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team was completed in November 2006. Panel members included Randy Cook, Department of Corrections Retiree and Former Training Academy Manager, Gene Stipe Correctional Training Academy; Lieutenant Mike Mize, State Commander of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Emergency Response Team; and Robert Sershon, Probation and Parole Officer 111, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections.

This review resulted in an estimated savings of $14,400.

-- The Organizational Review of Victim Services was completed in December 2006. Panel members included: Cindy Baker, Victim Coordinator Assistant, Canadian County District Attorney's Office; Debbie Boyer, Quality Assurance Administrator, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Allyson Carson, Victim Services Coordinator, Oklahoma Attorney General's Office; Kay Davis, Probation and Parole Officer II, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; and Kim Weems, Victim Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Two Organizational Reviews are currently underway:

-- An Organizational Review of the Classification Audit Process is underway. The panel submitted i t s interim report on December 19, 2006, and met with Director Justin Jones and other key decision makers to discuss initial recommendations on January 1 I, 2007. Panel members include: Assistant Executive Coordinator Trent Baggett, Oklahoma County District Attorney's Council; Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureau Chief Lawrence Hicks; Warden Janice Melton, Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; and Programs Administrator Mary Smith, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

-- An Organizational Review of Financial and Business Services agency-wide is also underway. The panel has conducted interviews with central office Finance and Accounting staff and central office Contracts and Acquisitions staff. The panel is also scheduled to interview finance/business staff from Oklahoma Correctional Industries and Agri-Services as well as field finance/business staff.

Financelbusiness staff system-wide have identified primary processes and submitted flow charts documenting the steps of each of those processes for the panel's review. The Financial and Business Services Organizational Review Panel includes: Tommi Berg, Business Manager 111, James Crabtree Correctional Center, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Brenda Bolander, State Comptroller, Office of State Finance; Marilyn Capps, Associate Administrator and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Personnel Management; Steve Funck, Deputy State Comptroller, Office of State Finance; Becky Lawmaster, Local Administrator, Tulsa Community Sentencing, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; J. Michael Patterson, Assistant Director, Comptroller Division, Department of Transportation; and Randy Ross, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Central Services.

The next series of Organizational Reviews have been initiated. Initial meetings have been held with site representatives who are gathering information for Organizational Reviews of (I) Medical Services, (2) Programs (including Education), (3) Procedures and Accreditation, (4) maintenance operations statewide; and (5) sex offender treatment statewide. Al l site representative information will be received by April 1, 2007.

Quality Assurance staff provided Quality Awareness, Teams, Tools, and Techniques training to staff from the James Crabtree Correctional Center, the Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, and the William Key Correctional Center on March 28, 2007. This same training will be provided to Correctional Leadership Development 111 participants on Apri l 10.2007.

Several process action teams have been chartered, and Quality Assurance staff are facilitating and providing support for these teams as needed:

-- Two process action teams were chartered by the Board of Corrections on June 20, 2006, to examine agency-wide issues: (I) Tobacco Free Workplace Program and (2) Oklahoma State Penitentiary Rodeo. -- Two process action teams were chartered during the month of August 2006 to examine: (1) feasibilityldevelopment of Citizens Academies and (2) development of a comprehensive needs assessment process for volunteers.

-- A process action team was chartered during the month of October 2006 to examine the Oklahoma County Reentry Services Contract.

-- A process action team was chartered during the month of March 2007 to examine case management and unit management agency-wide.

-- Additional process action teams will be chartered in partnership with the agency's Leadership Development Program so that program participants can work together to address agency-wide issues.

Executive summaries for completed organizational reviews are available on the agency's web page at: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/treatmentlsuality/reviews. htm

13. Why i s the program a new and creative approach or method?

Corrections Quality Assurance i s a philosophy and a strategy for continuous improvement of performance at every level in the department in an effort to: (1) ensure better allocation of resources; (2) more efficient and effective operations based on continuous improvement; and (3) creation and delivery of quality (best practice) results-driven programs and senn'ces to better fulfill the department's vision and mission.

One of the key components of the Corrections Quality Assurance system is the use of a series of Organizational Review Panels composed of internal and external stakeholders with subject matter expertise specific to the area under review. For example, the department is currently reviewing i t s business and financial systems statewide. Panel members include: Tommi Berg, Business Manager 111, James Crabtree Correctional Center, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Brenda Bolander, State Comptroller, Office of State Finance; Marilyn Capps, Associate

Administrator and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Personnel Management; Steve Funck, Deputy State Comptroller, Office of State Finance; Becky Lawmaster, Local Administrator, Tulsa Community Sentencing, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; J . Michael Patterson, Assistant Director, Comptroller Division, Department of Transportation; and Randy Ross, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Central Services.

The Organizational Review Process itself includes a survey component whereby input i s gathered from employees of the area under review; department upper managers; internal and external stakeholders for the area under review; an environmental scan which typically includes nine Oklahoma state agencies, six Departments of Corrections in contiguous states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, several private companies in Oklahoma, and pertinent professional associations or groups. A l l primary work processes are flow charted. The Organizational Review Panels are responsible for conducting a comprehensive examination of the area under review to determine if there are functions that are “misplaced” or duplicated and to identify opportunities for short-term and long-term improvements. In addition to the surveying component, this process often includes gathering and analyzing data regarding the specific area under review, conducting staff interviews, etc. Additionally, the panels are responsible for identifying a “Desired” State and performance outcome measurements if such measurements do not currently exist, for each area under review. Written reports of panel findings are reviewed by Director Jones and the Board of Corrections. Each organizational review conducted is evaluated by measuring the satisfaction levels of panel members, the site representative, and key decision makers involved in the process so that ongoing improvements can be made to the process itself.

In a parallel effort, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections established an Executive Quality Council and a series of Local Quality Councils responsible for chartering process action teams to address problems, issues, or work processes. The Quality Assurance System also includes a training component for the delivery of training in quality teams, tools, and techniques, as well as facilitation skills for staff.

This multi-tiered approach, coupled with the Organizational Review Process, provides the Oklahoma Department of Corrections an opportunity to take a fresh look at operations at all levels in the organization and make significant and ongoing improvements.

14. What were the program’s start-up costs? (Provide details about specific purchases for this program, staffing needs and other financial expenditures, as well as existing materials, technology and staff already in place.)

Existing staff and FTE (full-time equivalent positions) were utilized to start the program. In addition to the duties and responsibilities related to quality assurance, these staff members also provide administrative support for the Deputy Director of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services. New furniture was purchased at a cost of $5,000.

15. What are the program’s annual operational costs? The Fiscal Year 2007 operating budget for Quality Assurance was $66,635.

16. How i s the program funded? The program is funded from operating funds appropriated t o the Department of Corrections.

17.Did this program require the passage of legislation, executive order or regulations? If YES, please indicate the citation number. No

18. What equipment, technology and software are used to operate and administer this program? Microsoft Word, Wordperfect, Powerpoint, SmartDraw, and Adobe Publisher--Currently, we are considering purchase of PerformanceSoft software-a software designed for management and reporting of data related t o key performance indicators.

19.To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? If YES, please indicate the innovator’s name, present address, telephone number and e-mail address. Although the use of Quality Councils and process action teams is not new, the Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System i s unique in that utilizes a self-designed Organizational Review Process in combination with Quality Councils and Process Action Teams. The Organizational Review process in i t s entirety and i t s use of panels composed on internal and external subject matter experts i s an element that i s most likely unique t o Oklahoma’s Quality Assurance System.

20.Are you aware of similar programs in other states? If YES, which ones and how does this program differ? Several state Departments of Corrections utilize quality councils and process action teams as part of their system for continuous improvement; however, these programs do not include the Organizational Review Component utilized by Oklahoma.

21. Has the program been fully implemented? If NO, what actions remain to be taken? Yes

22. Briefly evaluate (pro and con) the program’s effectiveness in addressing the defined problem[s] or issue[s]. Provide tangible examples.

Pros

The Organizational Review of the Employee Assistance Program resulted in an estimated savings of $50,000.

The Organizational Review of the Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team resulted in an estimated savings of $14,400.

Numerous other recommendations were made as a result of the Organizational Review Process. These recommendations were approved by the agency director and are being implemented by individual units within the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Please refer to attached Executive Summaries for a l is t of recommendations.

These reviews have also resulted in increased collaboration with other state and federal agencies because staff from these agencies have served as members of review panels. Their experiences on these panels have increased their knowledge and understanding of the Department of Corrections and have provided them ideas and information they can take back to their agencies for implementation. At the conclusion of each organizational review, all involved are asked to respond to a series of questions. The feedback from participants i s then used to make ongoing improvements to the process itself. Following are the criteria and ratings.

Quality Assurance Baseline Measurements: Satisfaction of Panel Members

Satisfaction of panel members i s based on the criteria listed below:

Criteria 1:

Criteria 2:

Criteria 3: Criteria 4 Criteria 5

The Organizational Review Process was an effective method of completing a comprehensive review of the area under review. Your ideas and knowledge about the subject were respected and valued, and there was an open flow of ideas. Quality Assurance staff effectively supported and assisted the panel in i ts review. Overall, you believe your experience as a panel member was a worthwhile experience. You are proud of the panel's work product.

Overall Satisfaction of Panel Members 00%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0 - Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Ctiteria 5

Volunteer Services @ Employee Assistance 0 TulsaCERT

Victim Services

Quality Assurance Baseline Measurement: Satisfaction of Decision Makers and Site Representative

Satisfaction of decision makers and site representatives are based on the criteria listed below:

Criteria 1:

Criteria 2: Criteria 3: Criteria 4

Criteria 5:

The Organizational Review Process was an effective method of completing a comprehensive review of the area under review. Communication was maintained with key decision makers throughout the review process. The panel was knowledgeable about the subject area. Overall, the “Quick Wins“ and final recommendations were well thought, comprehensive, and valuable to improving the Volunteer SeM’ces operation. Quality Assurance staff effectively support and assisted during the review.

Overall Satisfaction of Decision M e n and Site Representative 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0 Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

h4z- Volunteer Services

c] TuisaCERT Employee Assistance

Victim Services

Some of the comments from those involved include:

“This process allows us to consider new possibilities and better ways to serve the agency.” “It was a great opportunity to get a better understanding and insight into another state agency.”

“I liked the use of external experts in reviewing the organization. The exchange of information i s extremely valuable. The department benefits from the expertise of the panel members, and the panel members benefit from the discussion and exchange of information and ideas that may be applicable to their own programs.”

Process action teams continue to address organizational problems, issues, or work processes and make improvements as needed.

11

Cons

Staff members from the area under review are somewhat uncomfortable and disconcerted knowing their area i s under review. This was identified during initial program design, and one of the goals became to be as transparent as possible. A communications plan was initially developed (see above). Communication Bulletins are issued on a routine basis; presentations are made to the groups under review; and executive summaries for all reports are made available on the agency’s web page.

23. How has the program grown and/or changed since i t s inception? Minor changes have been implemented since the program’s inception based on feedback from those involved in the process. The agency’s confidence in the organizational review process has grown as reviews have been completed. The complexity of the areas being reviewed as grown from small areas to complex areas with statewide impact. The number of process action teams has grown as more staff are trained and have begun to see the results of other teams.

What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter i f they attempt to adopt this program? It may be difficult to obtain the cooperation of external parties to volunteer their time to serve on Organizational Review Panels.

24.

12

2007 Innovations Awards Program Program Categories and Subcategories

Use these as guidelines to determine the appropriate Proqram Cateqom for your state’s submission and l ist that program category on page one of this application. Choose only one.

lnfrastructure and Economic Development

BusinessICommerce OEconomic Development Transportation

Government Operations Administration Elections Public information Revenue

Health Et Human Services Aging OChildren & Families Health Services Housing Human Services

Human Resources/ Education oEducation olabor OManagement oPersonnel Training and Development oWorkforce Development

Natural Resources oAgriculture oEnergy OEnvironment Environmental Protection ONatural Resources oParks Et Recreation Water Resources

Pub1 ic Saf etyl Corrections Corrections Courts Criminal Justice Drugs Emergency Management Public Safety

Save in .doc or rtf. Return completed application electronically to innovations@csi?.org or mail to:

CSG innovations Awards 2007 The Council of State Governments 2760 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578-1910

Contact:

Nancy J. Vickers, National Program Associate Phone: 859.244.8105 Fax: 859.244.8001 - Attn: Innovations Awards Program The Council of State Governments E-mail: nvickers@csq.org

This application i s also available at www.csq.org, in the Programs section. Deadline: April 2, 2007

13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Oklahoma Department of Correections Quality Assurance System ensures the continuous review and evaluation of operational, programmatic, and function areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department. The Organizational Revew Process i s the primary component of this system. This report contains the findings and recommendations of an Organizational Review Panel convened to review and evaluate the agency’s Employee Assistance Program.

The Organizational Review Panel, composed of internal and external subject matter experts, completed a comprehensive review of the agency’s Employee Assistance Program. The cornerstone of this review process was a series of customized surveys that sought input from Employee Assistance Program employees and field coordinators; a random sampling of Oklahoma state agencies, Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections departments from contiguous states, private companies, and various other criminal justice entities; and Department of Corrections upper management. Additionally, the panel interviewed Corrections Director Justin Jones and Associate Director J’me Overstreet to obtain input on the role, purpose, and value of the Employee Assistance Program as well as their expectations for the program.

Summory of Pone1 Findinss and Recommendotions

* The “Desired” state for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Employee Assistance Program i s to effectively provide confidential, efficient, measurable services and the best utilization of resources at either no cost or a reduced cost. The Employee Assistance Program wil l assist employees in obtaining professional help with life‘s stresses and provide services which contribute to a reduction in employee turnover and a productive and healthy workforce.

Employee Assistance Program performance outcome measures include: (1) a reduction in the cost to provide Employee Assistance Program services to agency employees; (2) a reduction in employee turnover; (3) an increase in the number of employees and family members participatins in the program and the number of sessionsprovided to each; (4) a reduction in the out-of-pocket expenses to employees participating in the Employee Assistance Program; and (5) an increase in employee satisfaction.

By January 1,2007, the Oklahoma Department of Correctionswill outsource i ts Employee Assistance Program based on a fee-per-service contract. One full-time employee will serve as the “face of the Employee Assistance Program” and the asency’s liaison with the contracting entity. The remaining two full-time employees will be reassigned to other areas of need within the agency or the positions eliminated through attrition.

*

*

* ClosetheEmployeeAssistanceProgramofficeinShawnee, 0klahoma.andeliminatecostsassociatedwith rent and office expense.

Ensure the Invitation to Bid includes provisions for: (1) Intakes; (2) one to six counseling sessions (to include legal and financial) per employee (full-time, part-time, temporarykontract, student interns) and immediate family members (defined as spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, but includes step, grand, half, foster, or in-law relationships to immediate family members AND household members defined as those persons who reside in the same home, who have reciprocal duties to and do provide financial support for one another including foster children and legal wards even if they do not live in the household but does not include persons sharing the same general house, when the living style i s primarily that of a dormitory or commune): (3) on-site intervention services (i.e., group assessment and consultation for situations such as critical incidents, workplace violence, deathhicide of a co-worker, etc.); (4) monthly training services (training on pertinent EAP topics such as stress management, workplace violence, etc.); and (5) monthly management reporting, and provision of marketing materials.

* Transfer responsibility for the Employee Health and Wellnesscomponent of the Employee Assistance Program to the Benefits area of the Personnel Unit. No new full-time employees will be required to coordinate these services.

*

* Potential cost savings for Employee Assistance Program: $51,800

. . ,

.. .

. . ~ .

I . . . , .

:xz . . .

. . .

, .

. .

. .

. ,

! ,.-*:;~&:" -- ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PANEL

Randy Cook, Department of Corrections Retiree Former Training Academy Manager, Gene Stipe Correctional Training Academy

Lieutenant Mike Mize, State Commander, Oklahoma Highway Patrol Emergency Response Team Oklahoma Highway Patrol

Robert Sershon, Probation and Parole Officer ill Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Division of Community Corrections

PROCESS GUIDE

Debbie Boyer. SPHR, Administrator Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Quality Assurance and Operational Services

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

Cindy Gill, Administrative Specialist Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Quality Assurance and Operational Services

NOVEMBER 28,2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System ensures the continuous review and evaluation of operational, programmatic, and function areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department. The Organizational Renew Process is the primary component of this system. This report contains the findings and recommendations of an Organizational Review Panel convened to review and evaluate the agency's Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team.

The Organizational Review Panel, composed of internal and external subject matter experts, completed a comprehensive review of the asency's Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team. The cornerstone of this review process was a series of customized surveys that sought input from Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team members; a random sampling of Oklahoma state agencies; Federal Bureau of Prisons; corrections departments from contiguous states, private companies, and variws other criminal justice entities; and Department of Corrections upper management. Additionally, the panel interviewed Site Representative Rick Parish, Halfway House Contract Monitor Ann Tandy, District Supervisors Ruby Jones-Cooper and Mike Carr, Corrections Director Justin Jones, and Deputy Director Reginald Hines to obtain information regarding team operations, district operations, as well as input on the role, purpose, and value of the Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team and expectations for the team.

Summary of Panel Findings and Recommendations

The "Desired" state resulting from this review is, "The Division of Community Corrections will develop a uniform policy that utilizes best practices and the most cost-effective methods of efficiently responding to escapes from community corrections settinss."

Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team process measures include: (1 ) Consistency in community corrections escape data and (2) Consistency in notification processes and steps taken t o apprehend escapees across districts.

Recommendations are as follows:

* Recommendation #I: Eliminate the Tulsa Correctional Emergency Response Team. * Recommendation #2: Establish a uniform protocol for community corrections escapes. The uniform protocol will include, at a minimum: Definition of escape in the community corrections setting (whether contract community corrections or state community corrections), reporting requirements including reporting to the Agency Escape Hotline, the district chain of command, and the halfway house contract monitor (if applicable), as well as time frames for reporting. Recommendation #3: The uniform protocol will clearly establish an escape recovery team composed of members identified by the district supervisor with duties and responsibilities clearly specified regarding gathering intelligence, following up on leads, notifying local law enforcement, and apprehension procedures, etc. Only CLEET certified staff will be utilized to follow-up on leads in the community. * Recommendation #4: Should advanced training be deemed appropriate for those staff who are transporting offenders, following up on leads in the community, etc., the training will be obtained within the 16 hours of continuing education required by CLEET and completed on work time so that overtime i s not accrued for completion of CERT training. * Recommendation #5: Review the possible relocation of a fu2itive apprehension agent position to the Tulsa area during the organizational review of Internal Affairs. * Recommendation #6: Revise OP-050103 to ensure consistency between agency operations memorandum and community corrections uniform protocol once developed. * Recommendation #7: Review and revise the halfway house contract to ensure escape procedures-- definition, notification process, time frames, etc.,--are clearly specified in the contract. * Recommendation #8: Review and revise the halfway house contract to ensure Oklahoma Department of Corrections staff have timely access to offender files. * Recommendation #9: Establish a process action team to study transportation of community corrections offenders to ensure transports are being carried out in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

*

ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PANEL

Cindy Baker, Victim Coordinator Assistant

Canadian County District Attorney’s Office

Debbie Boyer, SPHR, Administrator

Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Quality Assurance and Operational Services

Allyson Carson, Victim Services Coordinator

Attorney General’s Office

Kay Davis, Probation and Parole Officer II

Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Northwest District Community Corrections

Kim Weems, Victim Specialist

Federal Bureau of Investisation

Facilitation and Administrative Support Ronnie Carrico, Administrative Assistant

Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Treatment and Rehabilitative Services Division

Cindy Gill, Administrative Specialist

Oklahoma Department of Corrections - Quality Assurance and Operational Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System ensures the continuous review and evaluation of operational, programmatic, and functional areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department. The Organizational Review Process is the primary component of this system. This report contains the findings and recommendations of an Organizational Review Panel convened to review and evaluate the agency’s Victim Services Unit.

The Organizational Review Panel, composed of internal and external subject matter experts, completed a comprehensive review of the agency’s Victim Services Unit. The cornerstone of this review process was a Series of customized surveys that sought input from the Victim Services unit employee; a random sampling of Oklahoma state asencies; Federal Bureau of Prisons; corrections departments from contiguous states, private companies, and various other criminal justice entities; and Department of Corrections upper management. Additionally, the panel interviewed Corrections Director Justin Jones, and Deputy Director Debbie Mahaffey to obtain information regarding unit operations, as well as input on the role, purpose, and value of the Victim Services Unit and expectations for unit operations.

Summary of Panel Findings and Recommendations The “Desired” state resulting from this review is, “Victim Services within the Department of Corrections wil l act as the initial point of contact in assisting victims of crimes by: (1) providing resources or referrals to meet immediate needs; (2) ensuring the opportunity for victim notification through VINE: (3) providing the opportunity for victimloffender dialogue; and (4) educating staff and offenders regarding victim issues. Victim Services within the Department of Corrections wil l also collaborate with other county, state, and federal agencies to develop training, education, awareness, and information sharing initiatives.”

Victim Services process measures include: (1) satisfaction with the victims’ receipt of information about statutory rishts, and their perception of the overall implementation of their rights; (2) delivery and quality of services provided by Victim Services; and (3) victims’ perceptions of their treatment by agency staff.

Approved “Quick Win” recommendations were as follows:

* * *

Quick Win #I. Implement the Victim Information Notification Everyday (WNE) system immediately with consideration of time frames for the development of the offender COMlT system. Quick Win #2. Once VINE has been implemented, dispose of offender files maintained by Victim Services in an appropriate manner consistent with Department of Libraries guidelines. Quick Win #3. Reallocate the existing classified Administrative Programs Officer Level II position to an unclassified position titled Victim Services Coordinator by working with Personnel to develop a job description and factor the position. Quick Win #4. Reallocate an existing vacant classified position within the Division of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services to assist with all activities associated with expansion of the Victim Services program. Adding a second position to the Victim Services Unit will also provide an opportunity for succession planningfreplacement training. Note: This recommendation was identified as “Needs Further Discussion.” A determination regarding the need for additional full-time employees will be made following ( 1 ) the reallocation and factoring of the Administrative Programs Officer Level II position and (2) implementation of VINE Quick Win #5. Establish a Victims Advisory Council, composed of internal and external stakeholders, to (1) serve as a resource in developing a strategic plan for the expansion of Victim Services and (2) provide ongoing guidance regarding program development. Quick Win #6. Conduct a comprehensive review of the Victims Compensation Fund. The review wil l include an audit conducted by the agency’s internal auditors as well as a review by the general counsel’s office and Finance and Accounting. Quick Win #7. Develop a strategic plan for the expansion of Victim Services to include: (1) community correctionslprobation and parole victim advocacy; (2) executions: (3) offender education, awareness, and training; (4) victimloffender dialogue/mediation; (5) protecting victims from intimidation, harassment, or harm: (6) restitution advocacy; (7) staff education, awareness, and training (pre-service and in-service); and (8 ) community outreach and education. The strategic plan should be developed with input from internal and external stakeholders (Victims Advisory Council) and modeled after the New Hampshire Department of Corrections plan to include specific goals, objectives, time frames for completion, and

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

APP

* *

*

* *

*

*

performance measures for each. Additionally, the plan should incorporate specific plans for automating associated processes, data collection, and record keeping, etc. Quick Win #8. Work through the Deputy Director of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services to ensure compliance with OP-090215 entitled “Victim Services,” by requiring each facility and district to identify a staff member to serve as a victim services liaison for each facility and district and ensuring these field liaisons fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in policy. Provide an educationlawareness segment for upper management to reinforce compliance with policy and to ensure a consistent approach to addressing victim issues. Develop and deliver an orientationltraining program for field victim services liaisons which must be completed once identified to serve in that capacity. Quick Win #9. Work in partnership with the agency’s Executive Communications Administrator to develop a victim services public educationJawareness “tool kit“ to include printed publications (brochures, handbooks, etc.), PowerPoint presentations, video, etc. Content must be approved by the Deputy Director of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services. Utilize this information in community outreach and staffloffender educationlawareness efforts. Additionally, provide this “tool kit” to field victim services liaisons for their use in local education and awareness and training activities. Quick Win #IO. Work in partnership with the agency’s Executive Communications Administrator, as well as internal and external stakeholders, to review the existing web-site for opportunities for improvement to ensure it provides information sufficient to meet the needs of victims. Quick Win #I 1. Revise existing employee performance appraisals for Victim Services coordinator to include “meets standards” measurements.

#roved recommendations were as fotlows:

Recommendation #I: Implement an Impact of Crime on Victims Prwram. Recommendation #2: Using the Deschutes County Juvenile Justice Client Evaluation Form as a model, develop and implement a Victim Satisfaction Survey as a means of measuring victim satisfaction and gathering data for the continuous improvement of Victim Services. The surrey will be made available in several formats to enhance participation. Formats should include written format, availability on the agency’s web page via a link, and e-mail distribution via SurveyMonkey.com. Survey results will be reviewed by the Victim Services Coordinator and may be reviewed by the Advisory Board and field liaisons in making ongoing improvements to Victim Services. Recommendation #3 (modified version of Quick Win #a): Work through the Deputy Director of Treatment and Rehabilitative Services to ensure compliance with OP-090215 entitled “Victim Services,’’ by partnering with each facility and district to recruit a staff member who is willing (voluntarily and based on expressed interest) to serve as a victim services liaison for each facility and district and coordinating with these field liaisons in the fulfillment of their responsibilities as outlined in policy. Provide an educationlawareness segment for upper management to seek recruits, reinforce compliance with policy, and seek assistance in ensuring a consistent approach to addressing victim issues. Develop and deliver an orientation/training program for field victim services liaisons, once identified, which must be completed prior to serving in that capacity. Meet with field liaisons quarterly or biannually to provide training, presentations from outside speakers, etc., and to work on activities associated with Victim Services program development and delivery. Recommendation #4: Establish a toll free tine for out-of-state callers. Recommendation # 5 As part of the program expansion effort previously recommended in Quick Win #7, employ a “wrap around service’’ philosophy by partnering with the agency’s transition coordinators to ensure victims interests are represented in the reentry process. Recommendation #6: Revise Standard Operating Procedures once VINE has been implemented and as needed thereafter. Ensure these procedures are reviewed and approved by the appropriate chain of command prior to publication or utilization of their names on the procedures. Recommendation #7: review publications and training curriculum on an annual basis to ensure information i s up-to-date and accurate.

VOLUNTEER SERVICES ORGANIZATIONAL REV1 EW PAN EL

Deborah Price, Projects Manager Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives

Major Connie Morris Salvation Army - Arkansas/Oklahoma Division

Karen Jacobs, Coordinator Department of Human Services - Office of Volunteerism

Debbie Boyer, SPHR, Administrator Department of Corrections - Corrections Quality Assurance

Panel Facilitator Robert F. Dibble, Jr.

Academy Training Manager Department of Corrections

Employee Training and Development Center

Administrative Support Cindy Gill, Administrative Specialist

Department of Corrections - Corrections Quality Assurance

REVISED JUNE 19, 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections Quality Assurance System ensures the continuous review and evaluation of operational, programmatic, and function areas operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department. The organizational Review Process is the primary component of this system. This report Contains the findings and recommendations of an Organizational Review Panel convened to review and evaluate the agency's Volunteer Services program.

The Organizational Review Panel, composed of internal and external subject matter experts, completed a comprehensive review of the agency's Volunteer Services program. The cornerstone of this review process was a series of customized surveys that sought input from Volunteer Services employees and field volunteer coordinators: volunteers; a random sampling of Oklahoma state agencies, Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections departments from contiguous states, private companies, and various other criminal justice entities; and Department of Corrections upper management. Additionally, the panel interviewed Corrections Director Justin Jones and Deputy Director Debbie G. Mahaffey to obtain input on the role, purpose, and value of Volunteer Services as Well as their expectations for the program.

Summary of Panel Findings and Recommendations

* The "Desired" state for Oklahoma Department of Corrections Volunteer Services is to ensure a well-trained, diverse volunteer workforce whose services are respected and appreciated, and vdih the support of staff, result in a benefit to the agency by saving dollars; providing a pool of potential employees; increasing offender pro- social behavior while incarcerated and upon re-entry; maintaining family connections: supporting at risk children of offenders; and reducing recidivism.

* Volunteer Services performance outcome measures include: (1) An increase in the dollar value of services provided; (2) an increase in the number of volunteers (occupational and programmatic); (3) an increase in the number of volunteers and student interns hired as employee; (4) an increase in the number of volunteers referring applicants who are hired as employees; (5) a reduction in the number of offender misconducts and new arrests while under supervision; (6) an increase in the success rates of offenders while under supervision in the community; (7) an increase in the number of volunteers providing re-entry programs and services to offender; (8) an increase in the number of volunteers providing programs and services provided to at-risk children of offenders; and (9) a reduction in offender recidivism rates defined as no new felony convictions.

Utilize the existing volunteer force as recruiters to help address agency's critical recruitment and retention needs by modifying the Connect k Collect! program to include a one-time incentive payment (same as that siven to retirees) to volunteers who meet policy requirements. * increase the use of Citizen Advisory Boards as a resource for addressing areas identified by volunteers as needins improvement (i.e., to provide equipment, supplies, recognition items, etc.) as well as needs identified during the program planning process. Complete development and implementation of the centralized volunteer database so that the volunteer approval process can be streamlined and secure access to facilities can be maintained. include i n the data base design, a method of collecting knowledge, skills, and abilities information on volunteers so that the agency can utilize volunteers, not only for programmatic purposes, but also for occupational purposes. Modify the employee exit survey for use by volunteers and offer the opportunity to complete an exit survey to those volunteers who leave the agency in good standing. Explore the feasibility of establishing Citizens Academies and utilizing volunteers to schedule and coordinate academy offerings. Establish a five-year strategic pian for Volunteer Services with input from internal and external stakeholders. Develop a recruiters tool kit and provide it as a resource to local volunteer coordinators. Ensure the recruitment effort is reciprocal between Volunteer Services and Personnel (Recruitment and Retention). Develop a method for maintaining active status to ensure the centralized database contains only active volunteers and that an accurate number of active volunteers is reported on the monthly report. Develop an annual individual performance appraisal system for volunteers. Explore alternative methods (i.e., videoconferencing) of delivering just-in-time training for volunteers.

Note: The above list shown in bold text is only a partial listing of the panel's recommendations.

*

*

* * * * * *