Missouri corrections officials tell committee staffing, pay and monitoring changes central to FY‑26 budget

The Department of Corrections outlined the governor’s FY‑26 budget recommendations to the House appropriations subcommittee, stressing pay‑adjustment measures and targeted incentives intended to improve recruitment and retention at the state’s most challenging correctional sites.

Susan Pulliam, director of budget and finance for the Department of Corrections, told the panel the state prison population is “around 24,000 right now, just over,” while physical bed capacity is “just over 27,000,” and that staffing — not beds — is the current limiting factor on occupancy. Pulliam said the governor’s request includes a pay plan plus several smaller, targeted new decision items aimed at particular posts and duties.

Why it matters: Committee members pressed on costs and the operational effects of the requested items. Corrections leaders said the measures are meant to stabilize staffing, reduce overtime and limit the need to move staff around the state — steps they said will also reduce the indirect costs of vacancies, such as outsized overtime and reliance on third‑party contracts.

Most significant proposals and discussion points

Pay plan and targeted stipends: The governor’s pay plan is in the FY‑26 request; the department also asked for targeted pay add‑ons for harder‑to‑fill assignments. Pulliam described two new small hourly stipends the administration recommends: a $1‑per‑hour “maximum security” stipend for employees stationed at the state’s highest‑security sites and a $1.50‑per‑hour stipend for staff assigned to restrictive housing units. Department witnesses said those stipends are intended to reduce vacancies and turnover in the most challenging posts. The committee discussed whether the small per‑hour amounts will move the recruitment needle and how the department tracks the pay plan’s effect on retention.

Electronic monitoring for out‑counts/work release: The governor recommended funding for a contract to provide electronic monitoring on temporary out‑counts and work release (ankle devices), expanding current use of monitoring in probation/parole. Pulliam said the new equipment would be able to generate alerts and “would only be able to be unlocked by someone at the facility.” Committee members pressed about vendor selection, monitoring capacity and whether central monitoring would be resilient (for example, whether a single operator could effectively supervise many devices). The department said procurement is planned and the state will go to competitive bid.

Prison nursery and women’s services: The department repeated that a new 14‑bed prison nursery at the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (Vandalia) is due to open in February; Pulliam said the facility “should have our first babies in February,” and noted the unit was statutorily required to open by July 1. The projected operating cost cited in the hearing was roughly $837,000, which committee members compared with state per‑inmate daily cost estimates of about $100 ($36,000 a year). Committee members pressed on staffing, health care and whether the nursery required regulatory alignment with civilian child‑care rules; department witnesses said the nursery’s health and safety standards mirror public health guidance and that the program is designed for mothers to keep their infants rather than serve as a standard daycare.

Capacity, overtime and recruitment: Corrections officials said vacancies have driven use of a “population growth pool” of staff who travel between facilities to fill gaps; improving staff retention remains the primary lever to reduce overtime. The department reported steady progress in staffing but said overtime remains necessary for 24/7 operations (holiday comp pools and institutional appropriations still carry the bulk of overtime payout). Officials told the committee that some line‑item lapses reflect unfilled positions rather than underspending on operations.

Third‑party contracts and food service: The department described an existing five‑year third‑party food service contract that was competitively bid and said the vendor fills positions the department could not, reducing vacancy‑driven expenses at some facilities. Witnesses said the vendor has been able to recruit staff across sites and that offender satisfaction with food has been positive. Committee members asked about contract duration and vendor oversight.

Programs, housing models and recidivism: DOC witnesses described changes to housing and programming — “dynamo” units and honors houses — that concentrate graduates of programming into less‑staff‑intensive, graduated environments. The department reported ongoing substance‑use treatment programming, career and technical education and other in‑custody services aimed at reentry. Pulliam and corrective‑services leaders emphasized they are expanding evidence‑based programming alongside environmental changes to reduce incidents and recidivism risk.

Budget mechanics and unsettled items: Several committee members asked about line‑item lapses and one‑time versus ongoing costs. Pulliam said some appropriations (for instance, for certain grants or pass‑through federal funds) are adjusted each year to match award timing and that federal award cycles do not match the state’s fiscal calendar. Members also asked about legal settlements and their impact on DOC appropriations; the department said most recent large transfers related to employee litigation originating years earlier.

Quotes from the hearing

• "So we're around 24,000 right now, just over," Susan Pulliam said when asked for current population figures. "Capacity is greatly determined by our staffing levels more than the actual beds we have."

• Describing an in‑custody recovery support item, Pulliam said the program is a “pay‑for‑success model rather than a pay‑for‑participation model.”

• "This device would only be able to be unlocked by someone at the facility," Pulliam said of the proposed electronic monitoring unit for out‑counts.

Actions recorded (budget items raised at hearing)

• Governor’s pay plan (new decision item) — described in testimony; outcome in hearing: governor recommended; legislative action pending. Notes: affects many DOC personnel lines; department requested GR pickup in some funds to cover the plan.

• Maximum‑security stipend (new decision item) — $1 per hour stipend recommended for staff working at maximum security sites; governor recommended; legislative action pending.

• Restrictive‑housing stipend (new decision item) — $1.50 per hour stipend for staff assigned to restrictive housing units; governor recommended; legislative action pending. Department said staff must complete training certification to qualify.

• Electronic monitoring contract for out‑counts/work release (new decision item) — funding requested to contract for ankle‑style electronic monitoring of incarcerated people when they leave for work or hospital out‑counts; governor recommended; procurement planned.

• Prison nursery (core decision item / implementation) — 14‑bed nursery at Women’s Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center; department stated it expects the first infants in February and noted the nursery is statutorily required by July 1; funding for ongoing operation listed in core.

Discussion vs. decisions

Discussion points: committee members questioned whether small stipends would materially change retention, asked for data on staffing trends and on the cost and efficacy of vendor contracts (food service, outsourcing of custody). Lawmakers also sought details on facility maintenance needs, long‑term capital plans, overtime trends and the department’s plans to deploy programming to reduce incidents and recidivism.

Decisions/directions (as stated in hearing): the department committed to provide additional details requested by committee members (vendor terms and procurement details for monitoring; more breakdowns on institution‑level staffing and costs; follow‑up on legal settlement liabilities). No final legislative votes or appropriations were recorded during the hearing itself.

Clarifying details captured from the hearing

• Current incarcerated population: "around 24,000" (Pulliam). • Physical bed capacity: roughly 27,000. • Corrections Officer 1 base pay cited in hearing: $20.67 per hour (department figure). • Estimated per‑offender cost: about $100 per day (~$36,000 per year) (department estimate cited in Q&A). • Prison nursery: 14‑bed unit; projected FY '26 operating cost cited in hearing about $837,000; department expects to receive first infants in February and said statute requires opening by July 1. • Max‑security stipend: $1 per hour (new decision item). • Restrictive housing stipend: $1.50 per hour (new decision item). • Electronic monitoring: planned contract procurement; device will produce alerts for tampering/out‑of‑zone events; vendor selection pending.

Proper names (extracted from hearing)

• Department of Corrections (agency) • Susan Pulliam (person; Director of Budget and Finance) • Office of Professional Standards / PREA Unit (agency units referenced) • Missouri State Employee Retirement System (MOSERS) (retirement system referenced) • Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (facility, Vandalia) — prison nursery site • Algoa Correctional Center, Jefferson City Correctional Center, Crossroads, Farmington, Cameron (facilities referenced) • Dynamo program, Honors House (program names)

Community relevance

• Geographies: statewide correctional system; facilities called out include Vandalia, Jefferson City, Farmington, Cameron and others. • Impact groups: incarcerated people, corrections staff, families of incarcerated people (prison nursery), communities that host facilities, county law enforcement in areas of work release.

Meeting context and engagement level

• Engagement: high — the committee conducted extensive line‑by‑line questioning; many members pressed on staffing, overtime and procurement issues. • Duration: the Department of Corrections portion occupied the first part of a full‑day hearing and generated broad Q&A. • Implementation risk: medium — many budget items are contingent on legislative appropriation and procurement outcomes (e.g., vendor selection for electronic monitoring).

Searchable tags