Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DOC Commit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana DOC recommends centralizing 'DOC‑commit' placements, proposes decision matrix and court notices
Summary
Department of Corrections officials told the Legislature their review of the DOC‑commit process supports centralizing placement decisions, creating a decision matrix, tracking outcomes and notifying courts of placement determinations to improve transparency and accountability.
The Department of Corrections proposed centralizing its DOC‑commit placement authority and adding formal decision tools and reporting to reduce inconsistent placement outcomes and increase transparency.
At a Law and Justice Interim Committee meeting, Scott Eichner, rehabilitation chief for the Department of Corrections, summarized written responses and data the department provided after a January briefing. Eichner said the department’s files show it takes about 34 days on average to process an individual sentenced to a DOC commit and identify an appropriate placement. “On average, that's about 34 days,” Eichner said, describing a set of activities that occur during that period to determine the most appropriate placement.
Why it matters: lawmakers and advocates have focused on inconsistency and lack of transparency in DOC‑commit decisions. Eichner told the committee the department’s review shows substantial regional similarity in outcomes but also some outliers by county. The department said roughly half of DOC‑commit cases end up in treatment placements, with about 25% each going to prerelease or to prison and about 5% returning to community supervision.
What the department recommended: Eichner outlined four operational changes the agency says it could adopt without statutory change: (1) centralize administration of the DOC‑commit process within a single unit, (2) adopt a documented decision matrix/checklist to guide placement decisions, (3) track and report placement decisions and outcomes to stakeholders, and (4) send a letter to the sentencing court to inform judges of the placement the department selects and the rationale. Eichner said the changes would be implemented with re‑purposed internal staff rather than new FTEs and that the department is open to formalizing the approach through administrative rule if the committee wants an additional legislative check.
Committee response: Senators and representatives pressed the department on whether the proposed changes require rule or statutory changes. Eichner and panelists said the department believes it can proceed through policy and procedure, but they would be open to rulemaking if the Legislature prefers greater oversight. Senator Usher said he values judicial accountability and asked where a compromise might lie between limiting DOC authority and preserving flexibility; Eichner said the combination of centralization, a decision matrix and court notices would provide a practical, auditable check.
Next steps: Committee members asked the department to provide supporting court‑precedent materials and additional county‑level data. No formal committee action was taken at this meeting; the department said it would provide court precedent details and further documentation at the committee’s request.
Ending: The committee moved on to other agenda items after the presentation and Q&A. Members asked for follow‑up materials and for the department to clarify what aspects it could implement administratively and which might benefit from rulemaking or legislative oversight.
