---
title: 2.26.25 - Senate DOC Budget Hearing Overview
description: Senate Appropriations Committee reviews $3.4 billion budget for Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Parole Board, focusing on overtime, cost pressures, facility closures, healthcare, and reentry services.
---

[DT's Budget Blog ](https://support.thedtfirm.com/dts-budget-blog)

# [2.26.25 - Senate DOC Budget Hearing Overview](https://support.thedtfirm.com/dts-budget-blog/2.26.25-senate-doc-budget-hearing-overview)

 Written by [The DT Firm](https://support.thedtfirm.com/dts-budget-blog/author/the-dt-firm) | Mar 2, 2026 2:29:54 PM

**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:

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:**

**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:**

**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**

**Key Takeaways Emerging From the Hearing**

 

[View full post](https://support.thedtfirm.com/dts-budget-blog/2.26.25-senate-doc-budget-hearing-overview)

```json
{
  "@context" : "http://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "The DT Firm"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-03-02T14:30:01.858Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-03-02T14:29:54Z",
  "headline" : "2.26.25 - Senate DOC Budget Hearing Overview",
  "image" : {
    "@type" : "ImageObject",
    "height" : 225,
    "url" : "https://48572702.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/48572702/DOC%20Logo.jpg",
    "width" : 225
  },
  "mainEntityOfPage" : "https://support.thedtfirm.com/dts-budget-blog/2.26.25-senate-doc-budget-hearing-overview",
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "height" : 60,
      "url" : "/hs/hsstatic/content_shared_assets/static-1.4092/img/default-amp-logo.png",
      "width" : 60
    },
    "name" : "DT's Budget Blog"
  }
}
```