2.26.25 - Senate DOC Budget Hearing Overview

Senate Appropriations Budget Hearing: Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania Parole Board — Detailed Overview

The Senate Appropriations Committee convened a budget hearing to review the Governor’s proposed funding for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Pennsylvania Parole Board (PBPP). Testifiers were sworn in, and the chair noted that the combined general fund budget for DOC and the Parole Board is $3.4 billion.

Testifiers / Agency Participants

Committee leadership introduced the following witnesses:

• Dr. Laurel R. Harry, Secretary, Department of Corrections
• Kelly Evans, Executive Deputy Secretary for Reentry, Community Corrections, and Parole Field Services
• Christopher Oppman, Deputy Secretary of Administration
• Dr. Michael Zakin, Deputy Secretary for the Western Region
• Jim Fox, Chairman, Pennsylvania Parole Board

From the outset, the committee framed the discussion around DOC’s cost drivers, operational “right-sizing,” and whether certain spending trends—particularly overtime—are undermining those cost-control efforts.

Major Issues Discussed, Legislator Questions, and Agency Responses

1) Overtime levels and sustainability (SCI Chester as a focal point)

Committee questioning began with overtime, specifically citing SCI Chester.

Legislator concern: Several corrections officer positions were described as receiving overtime compensation ranging from $120,000 to $180,000 annually, and the committee asked whether those figures reflected base salary plus overtime or overtime alone.

DOC response: DOC confirmed the cited figures were strictly overtime and do not include base salary.

Follow-up question: Whether DOC views “six-figure overtime payouts” as a concern or sustainable.

DOC response: The witness indicated it was “sustainable,” explaining that if officers volunteer and pursue overtime aggressively, they can do so.

2) “Cost-to-carry” pressures: personnel, food, utilities

As the hearing moved into budget details, DOC witnesses walked through cost pressures embedded in the budget.

DOC explanation of cost drivers:

• A large component of the increase discussed related to salary increases, including $60 million attributed to correctional staff and $25 million across other bargaining units and management.
• DOC highlighted rising food contract costs, noting the food budget projected at $86 million with an additional $5 million projected to continue feeding incarcerated individuals and staff.
• DOC also referenced a modest utilities increase of $2.3 million.
• The witness tied these elements into a total “cost to carry” figure discussed in that exchange.

Legislator pushback (in context of facility closures): Members expressed difficulty reconciling cost-to-carry pressures with closures, asking whether closures were “official” and whether inmates had fully transferred from facilities identified for closure.

DOC response on closures: DOC indicated inmates were transferred from Rockview and Quehanna “this month,” while staff remained on site (the exchange specifically referenced ongoing staff presence after inmate transfers).

3) Facility closures and the handling of inmate personal property

A later exchange focused on practical impacts of facility closures on incarcerated individuals.

Legislator concern: Following the closure of SCI Rockview and Quehanna Boot Camp, a senator relayed a constituent concern that incarcerated individuals were allegedly required to either destroy property or pay shipping costs out of pocket—citing a reported example of $141 shipping costs that placed an inmate account into deficit. The senator asked whether DOC budgeted to cover the full cost of inmate property transfers, and if not, what the fiscal impact would be in future closures.

DOC response: (The transcript excerpt provided captures the question in detail; DOC’s full answer on budgeting and projected fiscal impact is not included in the excerpt shown in the search results. If you want, I can pull additional passages from the transcript to capture the complete DOC response.)

4) Medical care procurement, cost containment, and MAT spending

The committee also questioned DOC’s medical services procurement approach and treatment costs.

A. Medical vendor payment model (capitated vs. fee-for-service)

Legislator question: Whether DOC’s medical provider approach is fee-for-service or capitated.

DOC response: DOC described a model based on inmate population cost tiers and stated that, once set, it is normally capitated, with increases tied to medical CPI.

Follow-up: Whether vendors would have requirements to keep costs down.

DOC response: DOC indicated that competitive bidding and cost scoring are part of the procurement process.

B. Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) costs

Legislator question: What is DOC’s average MAT cost per inmate.

DOC response: DOC did not have the per-inmate average available during the hearing and committed to follow up; DOC did cite a total allocated MAT cost of $36.7 million.

5) Mental health acuity, specialized facilities, and placement barriers

The hearing referenced facilities that handle severe mental health needs (including SCI Waymart in one exchange).

A separate discussion highlighted a major reentry/placement barrier: securing post-release placements for individuals needing skilled nursing care.

Agency description of the problem: DOC described a pattern where social workers may make 200+ calls to skilled nursing facilities for placement, only to be rejected once the facility learns the caller is from DOC—characterizing this as driven less by capacity and more by stigma.

Interagency coordination: DOC stated that a meeting was held with DHS and the Department of Health, and that the result was creation of an interagency workgroup to develop proposals and next steps.

6) Emergency procurements / Job Order Contracting (JOC) spending level

A senator asked about emergency procurement contracting and the scale of current use.

Legislator question: How many emergency procurement contracts DOC currently has and how much they total.

DOC response: DOC stated that when using the emergency JOC program, total JOC expenditure is roughly $20 million in a given year.

7) Institutional safety and violence trends

The committee questioned institutional violence rates and what DOC is doing to reduce assaults and improve safety.

Legislator concern: The questioner stated that the institution violence rate in the past two years was the highest ever and asked what DOC is doing; an exchange clarified an increase figure (“six point one”).

DOC response: DOC emphasized staff and inmate safety as priorities, noted similar trends nationally, and described creation of a violence reduction committee to examine strategies and implement interventions, with specific leadership identified in the discussion.

8) Reentry preparation, benefits connection, and immediate needs (food/shelter/medication)

The hearing included a detailed exchange on what supports people receive as they leave custody.

DOC response on reentry supports:

• DOC stated it tries to ensure people leave with items such as an ID and Social Security card, and that staff assist with benefit-related applications so services can begin promptly, while also acknowledging there can be gaps.
• DOC described reentry service offices in all facilities and said every person releasing has the opportunity to participate in workshops or learn about services.
• DOC described “community re-entry parole agents” meeting with new releases and focusing immediately on necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, and medication, and helping connect to local resources.
• DOC also stated it provides medications upon release “to help bridge that gap,” but only for a limited period until individuals can access community resources.

9) Parole operations: Act 44 “special probation” implementation (Parole Board focus)

The hearing included a focused exchange on early implementation of Act 44 special probation.

Legislator question: Whether the agency was referencing Act 44 special probation, and how implementation is going.

Agency response (Parole Board testimony context): The witness said cases started being sent to courts in June; they reported 16 cases closed and 139 pending with the courts at the time of the hearing. The witness also described creating an electronic report to help parole agents identify eligible cases.

10) Digital services / messaging costs

A smaller but notable operational question addressed whether incarcerated individuals pay for internet access.

Legislator question: Do they pay for internet access?

DOC response: The response indicated no (and clarified “just the messaging”).

Votes and Procedural Notes

• No committee votes were reflected in the portions of the transcript surfaced through search results.
• The hearing opened with formal oaths administered to witnesses.

Key Takeaways Emerging From the Hearing

• Overtime was a central cost-and-management issue, with DOC explicitly confirming six-figure overtime amounts at SCI Chester were overtime only and characterizing the level as sustainable if staff volunteer for it.
• DOC emphasized “cost-to-carry” pressures including salary increases, food contract growth, and utilities.
• The committee scrutinized facility closures, including operational status after inmate transfers and constituent concerns about property transfer costs tied to closure decisions.
• On healthcare, DOC described a typically capitated vendor structure and cited $36.7 million allocated for MAT, while committing to provide per-inmate cost detail later.
• Reentry discussions emphasized both service coordination (IDs, benefits applications, reentry offices) and the practical focus on immediate needs at release (food, shelter, medication).
• The Parole Board’s discussion of Act 44 special probation highlighted early implementation metrics and tools intended to help agents identify eligible cases.