Consultant: Oklahoma County jail struggles stem from structural funding and staffing gaps

Sean McDaniels of McDaniels Consulting Group told the Oklahoma County Jail Trust that a months‑long review of the detention center found the facility’s most significant problems are structural rather than behavioral, requiring changes to funding and staffing models rather than only manager‑level fixes. "The majority of operational strain at the detention center is structural," McDaniels said during a high‑level presentation of a roughly 250‑page final report.

The consultant outlined a three‑part framework for detention stability — dedicated funding, fully funded staffing and direct supervision — and said Oklahoma County falls short on all three. McDaniels cited that salary and wages make up about 59% of the jail’s budget, while exemplar facilities and national models typically allocate 70–88% to personnel. He also reported an average annual cost per inmate of $28,259; adding a recently approved $4.6 million supplemental allocation moves that figure to just under $30,000 but “does not materially alter” the facility’s comparative standing, the presentation said.

McDaniels described the team’s methods — on‑site facility tours, roughly 100 stakeholder interviews, benchmarking against 10 exemplar county jails, review of NIC (National Institute of Corrections) staffing methodology and a fiscal review taken prior to the budget board’s supplemental allocation. The firm produced a gap analysis across seven operational domains and aligned findings to eight success factors drawn from the exemplars.

Key findings included chronic understaffing that relies on overtime and part‑time wages as part of daily operations rather than as emergency fill; a lack of a relief‑factor/post‑based staffing model to cover vacations and sick leave; constrained maintenance and capital spending; and mental‑health services that operate but are not integrated systemically into a diversion‑oriented model. McDaniels noted nine of the 10 exemplar counties studied have dedicated revenue streams (examples cited: special local option sales taxes, property or sales‑tax set‑asides) while Oklahoma County relies primarily on the general fund.

Trustees pressed McDaniels about funding options; he said the exemplar jurisdictions used different revenue approaches but commonly had a protected revenue stream outside the general fund. He also walked trustees through a set of considerations (protected supervision posts, internal audit verification, workforce professionalization) that the report frames as potential ways to lower operational risk.

Trustees acknowledged the report and thanked the consulting team. One departing trustee urged the group not to let the report “gather dust” and recommended committing to follow‑through on the study’s recommendations. The consultant’s full report was distributed to trustees for detailed review; no board decisions to adopt specific recommendations were recorded at the meeting.

Next steps: the trust expressed interest in committee work and further consideration of funding and staffing alternatives; no formal policy changes were adopted at the meeting.