STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
P. O. Box 41101iOlympia, Washington 98504-1101iTel (360) 753-2500
FAX (360) 664-4056

June 7, 2005
Mr. Victor A. Moore, Director
Office of Financial Management
Post Office Box 43113
Olympia, Washington 98504-3113
Dear Mr. Moore:
RE: Assessment of Department of Corrections Incidents Involving
Supervised Offenders
This serves as the Department of Corrections response to the recommendations from the Loss
Prevention Review Team’s (LPRT) “Assessment of Department of Corrections Incidents
Involving Supervised Offenders” report, dated January 2005.
We appreciate the opportunity that exists within RCW 43.41.380 for agencies to respond to the
recommendations contained in the report. Since the writing of the report, there has been a
change in Governor and in the administration of the Department. Governor Gregoire named a
new Secretary for the Department and commissioned outside reviews of the Department’s
operations. Those reviews are outlined in separate reports authored by Nancy Campbell and
Kathy Mix. Both reports overlap with the recommendations of the Loss Prevention Review
Team. For the most part the recommendations are consistent, but there is the occasional
divergence.
It is not possible to speak of community supervision without reference to the changes in
leadership at the agency and the ongoing analysis of the recommendations of the other two
reports mentioned above. As a result the Department is undergoing significant change at the
present time. Just recently, decisions have been made to separate prison and community
corrections operations into two operating divisions. The Deputy Secretary for Community
Services has not yet been named at the time of the writing of this report. His/her arrival on the
scene is critical to leading the change necessary to strengthen community corrections in the state
of Washington.
The Department of Corrections welcomes the opportunity to educate others on the complexities
associated with supervising convicted adult offenders in Washington State. The Department of
Corrections is committed to mitigating offender risk, while at the same time, providing offenders
with opportunities that lead to a law abiding and pro-social lifestyle. As the LPRT concluded,
“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 2

responsibility for successfully managing and reducing the risk that offenders pose to society
cannot rest with one entity. The Department of Corrections will continue to partner with other
jurisdictions in an effort to increase the effectiveness of the resources that are expended in
supervising offenders and to increase offender success in reintegrating back into their
communities.
The recommendations offered by the LPRT reflect how difficult it is to have
a thorough understanding of the legal supervision requirements and restrictions, as well as the
complicated sentencing laws of the state. The report itself has some significant factual errors
regarding jurisdiction at particular moments for certain offenders and does not reflect a complete
understanding of what actually occurred in the supervision of individual cases. We have pointed
out examples of both in the body of this response. The examples only serve to illustrate the
complexity of the challenges facing the agency.
The Department appreciates the time and the commitment on the part of the team to work
together to produce an end product that is aimed at better serving the citizens of the state of
Washington. We are committed to improve the services provided by the Department of
Corrections and to partnering with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Recommendation Number 1:
Make the type and terms of the offender’s sentence readily available to CCOs, so that there is no
confusion or ambiguity in the CCO’s mind about what the offender is required to do.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
Since the 1984 implementation of the SRA, there has been a layering of legislative sentencing
changes. While no precise count exists, experts point to in excess of 30 changes impacting
sentencing laws, which have increased the complexity Community Corrections Officers must
manage in order to supervise an individual case. Each change to the law has made it more
difficult for staff to easily identify the statutory requirements associated with an offender’s
sentence. That, coupled with the often multiple causes for which an offender is being supervised,
creates a complex system. To assist staff with the complicated sentencing requirements, the
Department is developing a job aid, which will help staff more easily identify the supervision
type and DOC’s statutory authority
regarding supervision, sanctioning, and the imposition of conditions. This job aid is targeted for
deployment by June 30, 2005.
A more comprehensive approach to implementing this recommendation involves possible
legislative changes to simplify sentencing and supervision requirements. An option suggested in
the Campbell report is a one (1) cause only supervision. In this option, it would be the
responsibility of the Judge to roll up any prior existing conditions at the time of any felony
sentencing.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 3

Significant legislative and political resolve will be required in order to achieve the intent of the
recommendation. Discussion with legislators and other key stakeholders needs to continue to
occur in an effort to identify meaningful and workable solutions.
Of note, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission is in the process of exploring recommendations
to simplify sentencing and the implications of post release supervision. Other options from those
discussions may emerge.
Note: As was stated, it is important to correct factual discrepancies in the report. Following are
some clarifications regarding supervision activities related to the subject cases.
Re: Haggerty, Daniel
On page 7 of the report, under the Supervision by the Department of Corrections section, first
paragraph, in part it states: “…There was no pre-sentence investigation and the reason for this is
not provided.” The court did not order a Pre-Sentence Investigation.
On page 8 of the report, under the September 12, 1997 entry, in part it states: “…The condition
imposed was ‘not consume alcohol to excess, subject to monitoring for alcohol
abuse.” There is nothing in the written court documents that suggests that this was a condition
imposed by the judge. The conditions imposed by the court are cited above.”
The Judgment and Sentence dated August 13, 1997, states that the offender was not to consume
alcohol to excess and that he will be subject to monitoring for alcohol at the discretion of the
CCO.
On page 10 of the report, under the Criminal Conduct section, in part it states: “…It should be
noted that Haggerty repeatedly was released from jail and CCO Woods would not find out about
it until he committed another crime.” Seven separate chrono entries listed in OBTS clearly
suggest that CCO Woods was aware of Haggerty’s releases from jail. CCO Woods was
contacted by the offender or other collateral contacts.
At the time of the murder, Haggerty was on monetary-only supervision. The Department lacked
authority to impose and enforce affirmative or prohibitive conditions. His prior convictions for
Assault 3rd, Burglary 2nd, and Malicious Mischief 3rd had all been closed.
Re: Shirihama, Anthony
On page 12 of the report, under the Supervision History section, in part it states: “…An
assessment by CCO Kinner on June 13, 2002, using the LSI-R concluded that his chance to reoffender was 76 percent with a Risk Management Classification of RM-A. CCO Schilling’s
assessment on June 13, 2002, with the LSI-R concluded that he had a 77 percent chance to reoffend. However, Schilling reported that Shirihama’s Risk Management Classification was RMD, rather than RM-A.”

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 4

We appreciate the footnote at the bottom of page 12, with the LPRT acknowledging that they
were informed that the CCO was aware of the error and corrected it in the system the same day.
On June 13, 2002, the LSI-R was assessed as 43, RM-A. The CCO then entered the information
on the RMI and due to computer error, it changed to RM-D. The CCO knew that that was not
correct. The RMI was reviewed and triggered to show the proper classification, which was RMA. Shirihama was an RM-A from June 13, 2002, to January 31, 2003, after the crime.
On page 13 of the report, under the January 17, 2002, entry, in part it states: “…The boxes were
checked on the Community Custody Order for abstinence from alcohol, no possession of a
controlled substance, report for urinalysis and not drive without insurance or a license and they
were marked out and initialed by the judge apparently withdrawing them.” In addition, on page
13 under the August 2, 2002, entry it states: “Rodriguez was convicted of 3rd degree assault. He
was sentenced to four months confinement and 12 months community supervision with the DOC
and to pay legal fees. No pre-sentence investigation was performed.” The court did not order a
Pre-Sentence Investigation. The Department of Corrections had authority to impose conditions
on those two convictions under the OAA and imposed the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not possess or consume controlled substances.
Submit to urinalysis to monitor drug use.
Obtain a substance abuse evaluation.
Obey all laws.

Rodriguez’s first conviction was for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. This offense occurred at
the time the Sentencing Reform Act was in place in Washington State. Under the Sentencing
Reform Act, the Department of Corrections lacked authority to add conditions.
Recommendation Number 2:
DOC should continue its efforts to study how well the OAA is meeting its intended social goals
and use the empirical outcome feedback to inform legislative changes that can keep the OAA on
target and further refine it. This requires identifying key performance indicators for purposes of
an evidence-based assessment.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
The Department and its state-level partners are positioned to implement this recommendation
through the GMAP process.
Recommendation Number 3:
DOC needs to audit supervisor compliance with the Supervisor Manual standards, and institute
changes to support supervisors in performing the case audits and implementing the other aspects
of CCO support envisioned by the manual’s standards.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 5

Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
The Department is engaged in several activities that support this recommendation. Presently, a
statewide team audits field offices for compliance to the Supervisor’s Guide to Offender Risk
Management. The audit team meets with the Supervisor to review the office’s audit results. Prior
to this meeting with the supervisor, a member of the audit team meets individually with the staff
member. A final audit report is prepared, which identifies best practices and deficiencies, if any.
The Supervisor submits an action plan identifying strategies to bring the office into compliance
for any areas identified. The action plan is approved by the Assistant Deputy Secretary for
programs and is tracked to completion by the Field Administrators.
Supervisors complete Risk Management Quality Assurance Review (RMQAR) audits on a
monthly basis to identify strategies for supervising high-risk offenders, as well as areas needing
improvement. This occurs in the form of a case staffing involving multiple staff. Copies of the
RMQARs are sent to Headquarters, who then collates and tracks the information for
dissemination to each region to assist regions in monitoring compliance.
Note:
The Manual referenced and reviewed by the LPRT was developed approximately 6 years ago.
The Department has since replaced that manual with a Supervisors Guide to Risk Management.
It is important to distinguish the fact that at the time of the occurrence of
the incidents, which drove the review by the LPRT, a different manual was in place than is in
existence today.
Recommendation Number 4:
Encourage team supervision efforts, and identify a standard process to use when a CCO is absent
for an extended period of time, to ensure that supervision of offenders continues. This also
relates to the need to reinforce supervisor activity that conforms to the Supervisor Manual.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
An increasing number of offices are using a team approach to supervise high-risk offenders. This
is a strategy that the Department supports. However, the geography and size of our offices are
very different and a one solution for all is not realistic or possible.
Supervisors are expected to organize the unit’s work to ensure supervision requirements for
RMA and RMB offenders are met. Offices employ various strategies to ensure caseload
coverage when the supervising CCO is away for a short or extended period of leave. Options,
based on the location and size of the office, include workload relief officers, dividing a caseload
among CCOs, assigning CCOs to cover field or office visits, etc.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 6

A Duty Officer (DO) system is also in place at each office. This system allows for the handling
of daily emergent issues and has proven to be an effective means for an office to respond to
emergencies.
This recommendation aims to create a standard process to ensure caseload coverage during
extended periods when the supervising CCO will be absent. Although processes are currently in
place (as outlined above) to deal with caseload coverage, the new Deputy
Secretary for Community Services will be asked to consider options for a standardized process.
This will encompass a review of job duties, as well as policies and procedures.
Note:
As referenced in the item above, the Supervisors Manual has been replaced with a Supervisors
Guide to Risk Management.
On page 21 of the report, first paragraph in part states: “…In the Anthony Shirahama case, it was
evident to the LPRT that the CCOs were supervising this individual
effectively, but, at a crucial juncture when Shirahama needed intervention, the CCOs were
attending to family issues and were absent from the job.” Attendance records contradict this
statement. There was a three-day period during the 2002 Christmas holiday season when both
CCOs were absent. During that time, the Supervisor of the office was available for coverage and
no issues arose during that time frame. Other than that three-day time period, one or both CCOs
were available.
Recommendation Number 5:
Establish a series of mandatory internal workshops that discuss the “basics” of corrections under
the OAA. The focus should include providing staff with a better understanding of the available
DOC resources and the priorities of allocation of resources. One outcome would include
developing plans for reprioritizing deployment of staff that includes a method of providing
backup or team supervision to avoid supervision gaps. Overall, this should lead to better
understanding by all staff of the finite resources of DOC staff. This could also lead to concrete
suggestions for reprioritizing deployment of staff.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation and believe it is very fundamental to the future of
community corrections.
Community corrections staff are asked to fulfill many roles. To paraphrase the Campbell report,
the agency has tried to be all things to all people. The multiple missions have created confusion
in the minds of the staff and the public about the proper role of the Community Corrections
Officer. The new Deputy Secretary for Community Services, working with agency staff, the
Office of the Attorneys General, and our criminal justice partners, will be asked to lead the
discussion to clarify this role confusion.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 7

Once this conversation is complete it is very likely it will drive changes to policy and staff
deployment. It is imperative that those changes be communicated to staff in a comprehensive
and thorough manner.
Recommendation Number 6:
DOC should consider developing additional regional treatment services to provide more
opportunities for offenders in smaller rural communities.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
Although we believe this recommendation was primarily driven by a perception that there is a
need for chemical dependency services in rural areas, we believe the need for mental
health, domestic violence, sexual deviancy, as well as chemical dependency treatment, outpaces
the available resources. Additional resources are necessary in order to meet the critical need for
these treatment services. More detail will be developed and available at the time of the
Department’s next budget request.
The Department has already identified rural areas where contracts with certified chemical
dependency providers should be explored. Those areas are: LaPush, Yelm, Arlington, Forks,
Monroe, Port Townsend, Castlerock, Enumclaw, Chelan, and Deer Park.
The Department will continually assess the need to expand service in sparsely populated areas.
Our Chemical Dependency Unit will institute a process to consult with each office
Supervisor on a bi-annual basis. Additional contracts can be pursued, as determined necessary.
Recommendation Number 7:
Risk assessments need to be completed prior to sentencing, so that the court can receive the
benefit of the important information gathered in the process for use in determining appropriate
sentencing conditions.
Discussion:
We do not concur with this recommendation.
In the majority of cases, the Department has little involvement in the sentencing process.
Current statute already allows Judges to request a Risk Assessment Report prior to sentencing.
The Department rarely receives such requests, perhaps because of the potential increase in jail
bed usage that would occur if such requests were routine.
The Department does complete a risk assessment, pre or post sentencing for all offenders.
Recommendation Number 8:
In addition to event-triggered reassessment, risk reassessments need to be done on a periodic
basis according to the offender’s current needs and level of risk.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 8

Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
A draft policy has been developed, which addresses time-driven reassessments for offenders
under supervision in the community. Pending stakeholder feedback, release of the policy is
slated for August 2005.
Recommendation Number 9:
Adapt the LSI-R to create a set of brief dynamic risk scales to monitor changes in offender risk
or design new scales to measure changes in offender risk. Seek expanded federal funding (in
addition to the current grant being sought) from BJA to support development of a set of practical
dynamic risk scales. Provision needs to be made for keeping this risk data readily accessible via
the CCO’s PDA.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
A discussion regarding IT enhancements occurs in Recommendation # 16.
The Department is working with the Washington Institute for Public Policy to develop an
improved risk assessment tool.
In addition, a coalition involving the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the
Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), and the Corrections Technology
Association (CTA) has partnered in the submission of a grant proposal to the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. The Washington State Department of Corrections Information Technology Chief is
serving as the Grant Project Manager. Through the grant, the ultimate goal is to develop an acute
dynamic composite risk assessment that employs offender diagnostic, criminal history and
supervision monitoring data to determine the probability of re-offending by persons currently
under community supervision. The availability of such an instrument would represent an
important improvement to the capabilities of CCOs to assess risk. It would enable staff and
service providers to better understand the types of risks posed by the offender, determine
whether s/he is in crisis, and to obtain guidance about what to do about it. Ultimately, this
information will facilitate more efficient deployment of public resources. Discussions are
occurring with the Department of Justice to determine if funding can be made available for this
project. The amount of the grant request is just over $2 million.
Recommendation Number 10:
Review the DOC hearing process to determine whether the agency should recommend
amendment to either improve its ability to respond appropriately to offender’s behavior by
imposing more severe sanctions, return the process to the court, or some other solution to address
the difficulty in creating effective sanctions for offender behavior.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 9

Discussion:
We do not concur with this recommendation.
Data does not support the assumption that more severe sanctions are an appropriate response to
violation behavior or that increased confinement results in fewer violations. What the data does
say is that effective intervention must be “swift” and “sure.”
Prior to the OAA, it took several months for courts to act on violation reports, simply due to their
workload. The agency is able to respond quickly to OAA violation behavior, through use of
electronic requests and the subsequent issuance of a Secretary Warrant. Depending on the risk
level of the offender, this can take from 1 hour to 1 week.
CCOs have the option of utilizing a Stipulated Agreement, in which the offender admits guilt to
the alleged violation(s) and agrees to certain interventions, e.g., submit to increased UAs, enter a
drug or alcohol treatment program, complete community service work, etc. CCOs can also enter
into a Negotiated Sanction with the offender, which is much like the Stipulated Agreement
process; however, it involves a DOC Hearings Officer and allows for the imposition of
confinement, along with other appropriate interventions. Both the Stipulated Agreement and
Negotiated Sanction are swift processes and are effective intervention tools.
In implementing the OAA, the agency designed the Offender Behavior Response Guide. An
extensive list of response options was identified, resulting in 6 categories: enhancement,
reparation, targeted intervention, treatment, partial confinement, and total confinement. Many of
the interventions require resources, which are not available due to budgetary constraints. The
Guide has become complicated and it is presently under review for modification. This review
will be completed by July 1, 2005.
It should be noted that the Department of Corrections’ Hearing Unit was not involved with either
the Haggerty or the Shirihama case. Prior to the incident under review in the Rodriguez case, Mr.
Rodriguez served sanctions longer than 60 days. On one occasion, the court sentenced him to 80
days confinement, and another time the court sanctioned him to 120 days confinement, and yet
another time, the court sanctioned him to 150 days confinement. These increased periods of
confinement did not serve to change his behavior.
On page 26 of the report, the last paragraph suggests that the agency should better articulate the
circumstances under which an exceptional sanction can be ordered. The Department’s Hearings
Unit has generally followed the same examples as those provided in the Adult Sentencing
Guidelines Manual, per RCW 9.94A.390.
Recommendation Number 11:
The current hearing process represents a significant negative morale issue within the internal
culture of DOC. Discussion and possibly reorganization of the hearing process
should occur very soon. All DOC staff need to understand the hearing process better. Hearing
Officers need to better understand the frustrations of CCOs and at the same time, CCOs need to

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 10

better understand not only the role of Hearing Officers, but also the constraints they work under.
It would be most desirable if the hearing process for probationers could return to the Superior
Court. Sanctioning prison releasees by a separate agency may be another solution. Providing the
supervision and sanctioning of offenders within the same agency leads, as it currently does, to
the potential for counterproductive conflict.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation as far as staff morale goes. We do not concur that the
process should be returned to the court or to another agency. The tension identified by the report
is inevitable and will exist no matter where the sanctioning authority is located. The same
tension existed when the courts conducted the hearings; however, the tension was heightened
because of the time delays experienced by the courts.
The Department acknowledges and is committed to improving the relationship between line staff
and Hearing Officers. The agency will assemble a workgroup as a means to begin to address this
important issue. Helping staff to better understand the hearing process will serve to alleviate
some of the frustration that staff now experience. This workgroup will be launched in July of
2005.
By way of background, since 1988, the Department has been involved in the sanctioning of
released offenders on Community Custody status. The hearings process was fairly simple for
both the CCO and the Hearing Officer. That changed, however, with a March 2000 court
decision in the Personal Restraint Petition of Samuel McNeal. Staff regularly equate the impact
of the McNeal decision with the implementation of the OAA, but they are not the same.
Prior to that decision, the Department followed the due process requirements of Wolff v.
McDonnell and likened the hearings to an “inmate disciplinary proceeding.” No written report
was required of the CCO, no discovery process was required prior to the hearing, and the
standard of evidence requirement was low.
The McNeal decision mandated the same procedural protections established under Morrisey v.
Brewer. These standards include: a) written notice of claimed violations, b) disclosure of
evidence to be used against the offender, c) opportunity for the offender to be heard in person
and to present documentary evidence, d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses, e) a neutral and detached hearing body such as a traditional parole board member -members of which need not be judicial officers or
lawyers and, f) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon and the
reasons for revoking parole.
All of these requirements were new to CCOs and caused a great deal of additional work. In
addition, it caused the hearings process to be much more formalized and technical. At the time
of this decision, OAA implementation efforts were just beginning. Had staff had more time to
embrace the philosophy of OAA, prior to the rendering of the McNeal decision, perhaps the

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 11

impacts of the McNeal decision may have been lessened, thus reducing the internal conflicts and
the morale issues that staff experienced.
Page 25 of OFM’s report states: “Taking on the responsibility of hearings for the Superior Court
has essentially lifted the post-sentence responsibility from judge’s shoulders.” This has added
significant “weight” to the decision-making process for CCOs who must deal with the offender
in the community. CCOs are less likely to use alternative sanctions such as treatment, when they
feel the burden of “responsibility” for the decision and its outcomes.” It should be noted that
under the OAA, CCOs are responsible for making recommendations for sanctions, just as they
did previously with the courts.
Recommendation Number 12:
All categories of staff be reviewed, especially the financial obligation units, safety units, hearing
examiners and the large number of staff associated with the LSI-R function for possible
reassignment to offender supervision.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
Implementation of the OAA occurred in 2000. It is time to review positions and roles. This
review will commence in July of 2005 and will be an expectation for the new Deputy Secretary
for Community Services.
Recommendation Number 13:
Use supervisors to provide coverage for line staff when line staff is not available to the offender
for reporting.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation in that it recommends that supervision be covered when
staff are not available, similar to recommendation #4. This recommendation highlights a
significant problem facing the Department.
As mentioned in response to recommendation #4, Supervisors organize the work of their unit to
ensure supervision requirements for RMA and RMB offenders are met. While it is certainly
possible to make some adjustments to supervisors’ availability to provide greater coverage for
line staff, this recommendation does not acknowledge the assistance supervisors currently
provide to staff. How much more or how to improve the coverage is a question the agency will
pursue. See recommendation # 14 for more discussion.
Recommendation Number 14:
As previously urged, the supervisor’s role needs to be more clearly described in a consistent,
measurable manner to include timed and defined case audits, expectations for in-house training,
role of the supervisor as a backup for line staff, and clear expectations for the supervision of staff
and the effective running of field offices.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 12

Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
This is one of several recommendations that suggest reviewing the roles and responsibilities of
Supervisors. The Department will embark on such a review in July of 2005 and make
modifications where possible, to ensure the greatest use of this limited resource.
As indicated in response to recommendation #3, Supervisors complete monthly Risk
Management Quality Assurance Review (RMQAR) audits to identify strategies for supervising
high-risk offenders and areas needing improvement.
The real issue is that the Department does not have enough Supervisors. The workload studies
do not measure the time necessary for Supervisors to provide proper supervision and monitoring
of staff performance, nor do they measure the work Supervisors are not able to complete.
Supervisors have many responsibilities, to include serving as back up to staff, conducting case
audits, training and mentoring staff, networking and responding to internal and external
stakeholders/interests, monitoring budgets, and ensuring the smooth operations of a physical
building. The Department of Personnel has indicated that best practices suggest a Supervisor to
staff ratio of no more than 1:8, however, 1:6 is preferred. The Department’s ratio of field
Supervisors to staff is 1:14. More Supervisors are needed and will be requested in the next
budget cycle.
Recommendation Number 15:
The Department provide more training and management development for supervisory staff,
including areas of diversity and cultural awareness.
Discussion:
While we certainly support cultural awareness and diversity, we do not concur with this
recommendation.
Among the training that Supervisors are required to attend, 3 separate management training
courses (which total 64 hours) include diversity as a topic. Other opportunities exist for
supervisors to participate in additional training offerings that also include diversity. Field offices
and facilities are encouraged to discuss and celebrate diversity on a regular basis. Many offices
host diversity events throughout the year. Some locations have instituted “Talking Circles.”
Recommendation Number 16:
The LPRT’s recommendations under this section total 5. For ease in addressing each
recommendation, we have added a letter next to each.
These recommendations would be valuable and of assistance to staff and the agency. However,
there are no additional agency resources to dedicate to these IT endeavors. The agency’s primary

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 13

focus at this time is dedicating our limited resources toward the implementation of OMNI Phase
2.
That automation and the electronic medium be used to:
Recommendation Number 16a:
Facilitate the creation of semi-automated PSI’s from the OAP for all offenders. The current
semi-automated RAR could form the basis for such an instrument that goes to the judge. This is
despite an assertion by DOC that the judges maintain they don’t need that level of information.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
To accomplish this, a change request would be required for OMNI Phase 2 (which is not advised
by external consultants) but not the current system. Greater exploration into this recommendation
is necessary for the agency to adequately assess the IT impacts.
Recommendation Number 16b:
Allow CCOs to collect data on changes in offender dynamic risk via PDAs in the field. Create
software that will permit the CCO to quickly use the PDA to ascertain the terms and conditions
of the offender’s sentence. Ensure that the OAP and PSI are included on the PDA for each
offender under the CCO’s supervision.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
A mobile device may be a good strategic direction. Resources remain an issue. It is estimated
that implementation of this recommendation would cost approximately 1 FTE and $1.5 million.
Recommendation Number 16c:
Create reports and generate statistics by importing standard language and offender ID
information from file notes to eliminate repetitive, time-consuming data entry tasks.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
This requires a data warehouse (for offender information) and business intelligence software.
Cost estimate is 1 FTE and $1 million.
Recommendation Number 16d:
Automate reports by importing standard language and offender ID information from file notes.
Generate statistics from file notes that mirror supervision goals and outcomes.

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”

Victor Moore
June 7, 2005
Page 14

Discussion:
It is unclear how this recommendation differs from the previous one. If it is aimed at extracting
OBTS chronos, on-line forms and middleware software are required. Cost estimate is $700k for
software and contracting services. Resource noted above would be utilized.
Recommendation Number 16e:
Use WI-FI technology to allow CCOs to connect to network programs from the field.
Discussion:
We concur with this recommendation.
This technology is now available, but is limited in range. The Department will continue to
explore technologies that will connect CCOs in the field with the Department’s network.
I would be glad to meet with you and/or answer any questions you may have. I can be reached at
360-753-2500.
Sincerely,

Harold W. Clarke
Secretary
HWC:tko
cc: Eldon Vail, Deputy Secretary
Tracy Guerin, Deputy Secretary
Kathy Gastreich, Risk Management and Safety Administrator

“Working Together for SAFE Communities”